influence of knowledge intensive business services (kibs ... · fundamental de competitividade no...
TRANSCRIPT
UNIVERSIDADE DA BEIRA INTERIOR Ciências Sociais e Humanas
Influence of Knowledge Intensive Business Services (KIBS) on Firm Innovation
Alexandra Maria da Silva Braga
Tese para obtenção do Grau de Doutor em Gestão
(3º ciclo de estudos)
Orientadora: Prof. Doutora Carla Susana da Encarnação Marques Co-orientadora: Prof. Doutora Zélia Maria da Silva Serrasqueiro
Covilhã, outubro de 2016
ii
Folha em branco
iii
Dedicatória
Aos meus pais
À Bianca
Ao Filipe
Ao Vítor
iv
Folha em branco
v
Acknowledgements
There were several people who, directly or indirectly, contributed and made this thesis
possible. The personal enrichment resulting of these contacts exceeded, inevitably, the
scientific work. To all, in general, I want to express sincere thanks. I would, however, leave a
word of acknowledgment to certain people and entities.
First, a word of genuine thanks and admiration to Professor Carla Susana Marques, academic
supervisor of this thesis, for accepting the challenge of this project, and to have
accompanied, always, and at any time, contributing with all her availability, critiques and
assertive suggestions. I am thankful for her patience, for believing in the final result of this
work and, above all, for the friendship over the years.
I am thankful to Professor Zelia Serrasqueiro, co-supervisor of this thesis, for accepting the
challenge of an on-going process, for the availability, patience, suggestions and criticisms
provided, critical to the improvement of this work.
To Vitor Braga, not only for the bond of kinship, but also as a colleague of profession and
head of department, for all the support, collaboration and shared knowledge; the
commitment and motivation to complete this process; for his constant and friendly presence,
and the endless words of encouragement that made possible to believe on the possibility of
achievement.
To Amelia, Beatriz and Helena, friends and doctoral colleagues who accompanied me in the
Ph.D. "battle", since the academic part until, for the words of encouragement, the fellowship,
the entertainment and laughter moments that made the last few years more "bearable"
allowing me to "survive".
To several colleagues and friends from the School of Management and Technology of
Felgueiras, who participated and facilitated this process, namely, Aldina, Marisa, Amelia,
Teresa, Vanda, Catarina, Sérgio, Gonçalo and Rui, a word of full gratitude.
To the presidents of School of Management and Technology of Felgueiras and Polytechnic of
Porto, for the support and encouragement demonstrated.
To my students, for their patience and wait for the assessment results, for understanding the
lack of availability for further monitoring and mentoring, and mainly for their recognition
shown, resulting, often, as an incentive and inspiration.
vi
To the firms that responded to the survey, for the friendliness and availability that allowed us
to collect data, and making possible the development of this research. A special word of
appreciation and thanks to CEO’s and academic experts who participated in the qualitative
study, for their time and the useful contributions and knowledge.
To the University of Beira Interior, in particular to the Director of the PhD Program in
Management - Prof. João Ferreira - for the support and availability.
The last, but not least, a big appreciation is dedicated to my family and friends, for their
words of incentive, tolerance to my constant absences, and patience. A special word goes to
my husband Filipe for postponing some personal and professional projects and for
the additional burden in the housework; and to my daughter Bianca, who often had to give up
her mother’s presence and accompaniment, being, at this stage, unable to understand the
importance of such absences and the many times of dedication to this work.
vii
Abstract
The ability to innovate is recognized, internationally, as a key factor of competitiveness in
the business world. In the services sector, the rapid growth of knowledge intensive business
services (KIBS), has demonstrated that they have a very important role in innovation
processes. The scientific community, increasingly, recognizes that service firms innovate
alone, but, more importantly, innovation, in this sector, affects all sectors of the economy,
due to the transfer of their innovation to other economic activities. The KIBS act as
knowledge spreaders, contributing, in different ways, to the process of innovation of related
firms: facilitators, carriers and/or sources of innovation. The literature also emphasizes its
role as innovation co-producers. In this context, through inter-firm cooperation, it is possible
to share and/or create knowledge. This provides a positive output for the firms involved,
either in terms of technology, or by creating new products/services. In light with such
arguments, approaching the influence of KIBS in firms with regard to innovation seems to be
critical to knowledge.
In order to achieve this goal, we developed a study mapping scientific publications,
intellectual structure and research trends on the intensive business services in knowledge,
highlighting the current mainstream approaches on the topic of innovation and knowledge,
supported empirically, which identified the relationship between the dimensions that
influence the processes of innovation and internationalization in Portuguese KIBS fims. The
framework consists of five key dimensions: innovation, knowledge, cooperation, localization
and internationalization. A first approach used qualitative data (interviews with KIBS’ CEOs
and academic experts). Subsequently two quantitative studies used data gathered through
investigation in KIBS firms listed statistics official on R & D in Portugal, produced from the
Survey on Scientific and Technological Potential (IPCTN) Firms, yielding a total of 58
responses (approximately a response rate of 15%). To empirically test the research
hypotheses, we used univariate and multivariate statistical analysis.
The results obtained support the relationships between the selected key dimensions
(innovation, knowledge, network, location and internationalisation) — proposed on the
literature review.
The results show that knowledge personalisation has a positive influence in proactive
strategies of internationalization, such as, external innovation and new organizational
methods. When KIBS cooperate with clients it has a positive impact in reactive and cost
strategies of the internationalization process. Therefore, the results of this study indicate
that high levels of cooperation with other firms and universities, urban location and social,
institutional and technical knowledge of KIBS, favor both the firms’ innovation and their entry
into new foreign markets – internationalisation.
viii
Keywords
KIBS, Knowledge-Intensive Business Services, Innovation, Knowledge, Internationalization,
Location, Networks, Cooperation, Co-creation, Clients, Higher Education Institution (HEIs)
ix
Resumo
A capacidade de inovar é reconhecida, a nível internacional, como um fator
fundamental de competitividade no mundo empresarial. No setor dos serviços, o rápido
crescimento dos serviços empresariais intensivos em conhecimento (Knowledge-
Intensive Business Services - KIBS), tem mostrado ter um papel muito importante nos
processos de inovação. A comunidade científica cada vez mais reconhece que as
empresas de serviços inovam por si próprias e, além disso, a inovação neste setor afeta
todos os setores da economia, ao transferir a sua inovação para outras atividades
económicas. Os KIBS funcionam como transmissores de conhecimento, contribuindo de
diferentes formas para o processo de inovação das empresas com quem se relacionam:
como facilitadores, transportadores e/ou fontes de inovação. A literatura sublinha
mesmo o seu papel de co-produtores de inovação. Neste contexto, e através da
cooperação entre empresas, é possível partilhar e/ou criar conhecimento. Daqui
resultará algum output favorável para as empresas envolvidas, seja em termos
tecnológicos, seja através da criação de novos produtos/serviços. Perante este cenário,
faz todo o sentido abordar a influência dos KIBS nas empresas, no que respeita à
inovação.
De forma a alcançar este objetivo, desenvolveu-se um estudo assente num
mapeamento das publicações científicas, estrutura intelectual e tendências de
investigação relacionadas com os serviços empresariais intensivos em conhecimento,
destacando-se as abordagens atuais de referência sobre a temática da inovação e do
conhecimento, corroborado por um suporte empírico que permitiu identificar as
relações entre a dimensões que influenciam os processos de inovação e
internacionalização nas empresas KIBS portuguesas. O quadro de referência é composto
por cinco dimensões chave: inovação, conhecimento; cooperação, localização e
internacionalização. Numa primeira abordagem desenrolou-se um estudo qualitativo,
que consistiu na realização de entrevistas a CEOs de KIBS e a especialistas académicos,
e que culminou em dois estudos quantitativos, os quais utilizaram dados recolhidos,
através de inquérito, em empresas KIBS que constam das estatísticas oficiais sobre I&D
em Portugal, produzidas a partir do Inquérito ao Potencial Científico e Tecnológico
Nacional (IPCTN) às Empresas, tendo-se obtido um total de 58 respostas (taxa de
resposta de cerca de 15%). Para testar empiricamente as hipóteses de investigação,
recorreu-se à análise estatística, univariada e multivariada.
Os resultados obtidos permitem apoiar as relações entre as dimensões chave
selecionadas (inovação, conhecimento, redes, localização e internacionalização) -
propostas na literatura.
x
Os resultados mostram que a personalização do conhecimento tem uma influência positiva em
estratégias pró-ativas de internacionalização, tais como, a inovação externa e os novos
métodos de organização. Quando os KIBS cooperam com os clientes há um impacto positivo
nas estratégias reativas e de custo da internacionalização. Por outro lado, as estratégias
reativas e de custos de internacionalização são influenciadas negativamente pela
personalização do conhecimento, partilha de conhecimentos e pela inovação interna. Os
resultados deste estudo indicam, também, que os altos níveis de cooperação com outras
empresas e universidades, a localização urbana e o conhecimento social, institucional e
técnico de KIBS, favorecerem a inovação e a entrada de ambas as empresas em novos
mercados estrangeiros – internacionalização.
Palavras-chave
KIBS, Knowledge-Intensive Business Services, Inovação, Conhecimento, Internacionalização, Localização, Redes, Cooperação, Co-criação, Clientes, Instituições de Ensino Superior (IES).
xi
Table of Contents
Part I
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1
3
1. Problem statement 3
2. Objectives, research questions and hypotheses 5
3. Research methodology
4. Structure
7
8
Part II
CHAPTER 2 Knowledge Intensive Business Services research: Bibliometric study of leading international journals (1994-2014)
9
11
CHAPTER 3 KIBS´ key dimensions: a qualitative study on innovation, knowledge, networks, location and internationalisation
42
CHAPTER 4 Exploring the relationships between KIBS and innovation: a
quantitative analyse in Portuguese firms
61
CHAPTER 5 Internationalisation strategy of KIBS: the effect of knowledge,
cooperation and innovation
79
Part III
CHAPTER 6
101
103
Final considerations 103
1. Conclusions 103
2. Limitations and future research lines
References
107
110
Annex 1
Annex 2
115
116
Annex 3
121
xii
Folha em branco
Folha em branco
1
Part I
2
3
Chapter 1
Introduction
1. Problem Statement
The issue of innovation and its influence on business performance has becoming increasingly
relevant based on studies carried out in various areas.
The scientific literature is unanimous in considering the ability to innovate as a key factor of
competitiveness in the business world (e.g, Tidd et al, 2005; Marques & Monteiro-Barata, 2006;
Sarkar, 2007; Gupta, 2008; Rasquilha, 2011). The maintenance of competitive advantage has been
for a long time, the "Holy Grail" of Strategic Management (Barney et al, 2005).
More recently, some researchers have focused their attention on the services sector. The first
papers on the industry date back to the 60s, but it is on the early 80s that the interest in
research on innovation in services increases, becoming a topic with growing interest for
researchers and politicians in general (e.g. Gallouj & Weinstein, 1997; Johne & Storey, 1998,
Howells, 2000; Gallouj, 2002; de Jong et al, 2003; Tether, 2003; Miles, 2000; 2005; Leiponen, 2005;
Gallouj & Windrum, 2009; Mention, 2011).
It is more and more recognized that service firms are not simply passive recipients of innovations
processed in industry firms, but they, rather, innovate (e.g. Gallouj & Weinstein, 1997; Tether,
2003). Moreover, it is also widely recognized that innovation in this industry impacts on the
remaining sectors of the economy, and certain types of services transfer their innovation to other
economic activities.
Within the service industry, the rapid growth of the KIBS sector (Knowledge-Intensive Business
Service) has shown to have a very important role in the innovation process (e.g. Den Hertog, 2000;
Muller, 2001; Howells & Tether, 2004; Toivonen, 2004; Freel, 2006; Koch & Stahlecker, 2006,
Kubota, 2009; Mas-Vérdu et al, 2011; Hipp, Gallego & Rubalcaba, 2012; Mas-Tur & Soriano, 2014).
KIBS have been playing a dynamic role in relation to innovation through the creation of a
"knowledge bridge" or "innovation bridge" between businesses and science (Miles et al. 1995;
Czarnitzki & Spielkamp, 2003).
Some studies focus on the role that KIBS play in innovation systems (e.g. Corrocher & Cusmano,
2014; Shi et al, 2014), while its cooperation with firms in other sectors increases the performance
of these firms and regions (e.g. Miles, 2000; Leiponen, 2005, Ferreira et al., 2012). Thus, KIBS play
a role in facilitating innovation process in the economy, including other sectors than services. To
4
this extent, it seems pertinent to analyse the role of intensive business services in knowledge -
KIBS, which, as Miles, et al. (1995, p. 18) refer, provide “economic activities which are intended to
result in the creation, accumulation or dissemination of knowledge”.
A general definition of KIBS firms can be found in den Hertog (2000, p. 505) who refer to “private
firm or organisations that rely on professional knowledge, i.e. knowledge or expertise related to a
specific (technical) discipline or (technical) functional domain to supply intermediate products and
services that are knowledge-based. In this perspective, several authors divide KIBS into two
groups: Technological KIBS (T-KIBS), which include the activities related to information technology,
research and development, engineering and architecture activities and activities related to
consultancy, technical activities of testing and analysis; and Professionals KIBS (P-KIBS): legal
sectors, accounting, bookkeeping and auditing activities, tax consultancy, market research, as well
as all the advertising industry (e.g. Frell, 2006; Doloreux & Muller, 2007, Shearmur & Doloreux,
2008).
According to Koch and Strotmann (2008) there is still room to accommodate more studies on
innovative activity in the service sector. The fact that it is a very heterogeneous sector in its
genesis (Consoli & Elche-Hortelano, 2010) is the main reason for discouraging researchers to study
innovation in the service sector (Howells, 2000). Nevertheless, and in line with the previous
debate, the importance of investigating how firms develop, integrate and organize knowledge has
emerged. Some studies on KIBS have been dedicated to the investigation of KIBS’ relationship with
its clients (usually firms in other sectors) (e.g. Antonelli, 1998; Bilderbeek et al.,1998; Den Hertog,
2000; Kox, 2002; Skjolsvik et al, 2007, He & Wong, 2009; Landry et al, 2012; Scarso & Bolisani,
2012; She & Nagahira, 2012), given that KIBS began to be seen as producers of innovation and
drivers of knowledge dissemination through its close relationship with clients (den Hertog, 2000;
Muller, 2001). According to the literature, KIBS play a role of innovation facilitators becoming the
interface between the generic knowledge available in the economy and tacit knowledge located in
firms (Kubota, 2009). Authors such as Haukness (1998); Miles et al (1995) and Bilderbeek, et al
(1998) refer three functions of KIBS: (1) they are facilitators of innovation, when KIBS support a
client in their innovation process; (2) they can be carriers of innovation, when KIBS transfer existing
innovations from one firm to another or within the industry; (3) they can be a source of innovation
to play a central role in the initiation and/or development of innovation, as clients, or for their
clients. Moreover, on many occasions, the relationship between KIBS and their clients is so close
that both depend on the efforts of one another in R & D to be competitive (Czamitzki & Spielkamp,
2003).
Thus, according to Capasso, et al (2005), over the last decade the literature focused on processes
of generating, sharing, identification and transfer of knowledge within and between firms has
increased. The focus on knowledge transfer is related to three perspectives, apparently distinct,
but complementary, on the agenda of the strategic organization. First, the perspective of strategic
capabilities, "looking to the firm's capabilities as organizational and management systems that
5
support learning processes required in knowledge transfer intra and cross-organizational" (e.g. Amit
& Schoemaker, 1993; Teece et al; 1997; Eisenhart & Martin, 2000); second, the growing
knowledge-based theory "looking to the firm as a repository of knowledge and a entity of
knowledge creation" (e.g. Kogut & Zander, 1992; Grant, 1996, 2003; Porter-Liebeskind, 1996;
Nonaka et al, 2000; Bettencourt et al, 2002; Eisenhardt & Santos, 2002). Third, the perspective of
strategic networks "claiming the relevance of inter-firms relations as learning platforms and inter-
organizational evolution” (Gulati, 1999; Gulati et al., 2000; Hansen, 2002; Capasso, et al, 2005: 2-
3).
Following the previous perspectives, Lanza (2005) adds that this process of knowledge development
consists of two related phases: the phase of sharing and the phase of creation, and to share
knowledge with competitors partners is a key step to effective activities of knowledge creation
(which is, effectively, to compete in the market).
Fernandez-Esquinas and Uyarra (2015) add that KIBS make a vital contribution to regional
innovation. Its relevance is potentially greater in peripheral areas, because they assist small and
medium firms to access knowledge.
Combining the proliferation of KIBS in modern economies with the relatively early stage of research
in academia and, taking into account line that KIBS play an increasingly active role in innovation
and competitiveness of any economy, it is crucial to identify the influence of KIBS on other firms
with respect to innovation, which is precisely the purpose of this research. Thus, this investigation
aims to analyse the role of KIBS in the business innovation process. Whereas, to our knowledge,
there are no studies, in the literature, that, simultaneously, focus on the relationship between the
five dimensions previously mentioned: innovation, knowledge, cooperation, localization and
internationalization, one expects that this research results in a gain for the academic knowledge
and to the business community.
2. Objectives, research questions and hypothesis
The general objective of this research is to analyse the role of KIBS in business innovation
processes. To achieve this general objective, the following specific objectives were outlined:
(1) To map the scientific publications, intellectual structure and research trends related to
the intensive business services in knowledge, in order to develop a description of the main
characteristics of KIBS and to identify the theoretical approaches used in the analysis of this
type of business (eg, creation, sharing and knowledge transfer focused on KIBS, cooperation
and innovation networks, localization and internationalization strategies), and the different
connections between the different dimensions; (2) To propose a conceptual model of analysis
to be tested empirically in subsequent quantitative studies; (3) To explore the effects and
relationships established at the level of knowledge, cooperation and internationalization in
6
the process of innovation co-production of KIBS firms; (4) To identify and to explore the
effects of innovation, knowledge and cooperation in the internationalization of KIBS.
Considering the aforementioned conceptual framework and the objectives of this research,
the following research questions were defined: (1) What are the main research trends on
KIBS?; (2) What relations are established between the key dimensions in Portuguese KIBS
firms?; (3) How is the accumulated knowledge transmitted for firms with which the KIBS
relate?; (4) What contributes to the co-production of innovation? (5) What is the contribution
of the key dimensions to the process of internationalization of KIBS?
To answer the objectives of the study there are several units of analysis. With regards to the
goal of mapping scientific publications, intellectual structure and research trends the unit of
analysis are scientific articles. In order to validate the measurement instruments and to
define the conceptual model of research, we used interviews with KIBS’ CEOs and national
and international academic experts. These are the unit of analysis. With regards to the
collection of primary data, a questionnaire, previously validated, was applied, and the unit of
analysis was KIBS firms. In what regards the collection of primary data, a questionnaire,
previously validated, was applied, and the unit of analysis was the KIBS firms (see table 1).
Table 1: objectives, research questions and analysis units
Objectives Research questions Analysis units To map scientific publications, intellectual structure and research trends related to the intensive business services in knowledge, in order to develop a description of the main characteristics of KIBS and to identify the theoretical approaches used in the analysis of this type of business (e.g. creation, sharing and knowledge transfer focused on KIBS, cooperation and innovation networks, localization and internationalization strategies), and the different connections between the different dimensions.
What are the main research trends on KIBS?
Scientific Articles
To propose a conceptual model of analysis to be tested empirically in subsequent quantitative studies;
What relations are established between the key dimensions in Portuguese KIBS firms?
KIBS’ CEOs;
national and international academic experts
How is transmitted the accumulated knowledge for firms with which the KIBS relate?
To explore the effects and relationships established at the level of knowledge, cooperation and internationalization in the process of co-production innovation of KIBS firms
What contributes to the co-production of innovation?
KIBS’ CEOs
To identify and to explore the effects of innovation, knowledge and cooperation in the internationalization of KIBS.
What is the contribution of the key dimensions to the process of internationalization of KIBS?
KIBS’ CEOs
7
3. Methodology
Taking into account the sector in study and the research questions, we opted, in this
research, for a qualitative and quantitative research, using data collection instruments of
both types. As a result, we conducted four studies.
The first empirical study "Knowledge Intensive Business Services Research: Bibliometric study
of leading international journals (1994-2014)" is a quantitative research and presents a
bibliometric analysis of the scientific production in the field of Knowledge Intensive Business
Services, using the publications indexed on the ISI Web of Science – WoS, for the period 1994-
2014. The bibliometric analysis involves the application of a quantitative statistical analysis
to the publications and respective citations. According to some authors (eg Small, 1973; Zitt
& Bassecoulard, 1994), the analysis of co-citations is often used to outline, in detail, the
publications in a given field of research, allowing identifying articles with the greatest
impact. This study aimed to analyse the characteristics of academic production, considering a
number of keywords associated with the theme, in order to know, evaluate and measure
productivity in this scientific field, the main authors and journals of greatest impact and the
collaboration relationships between institutions and countries. This study also served to
identify the main research focus that supported the construction of the research model and
the questionnaire that allowed the collection of data for the subsequent studies.
The second study "KIBS' key dimensions: a qualitative study on innovation, knowledge,
networks, location and internationalization", focused on findings from the bibliometric study,
and allowed to promote a better understanding of the key topics associated to the study of
KIBS. In this study, we choose a qualitative methodology through the application of semi-
structured interviews to six KIBS’ CEOs firms and four academics (national and international),
experts in the field of research with scientific publications in international journals indexed
(SSCI), in order to validate the questionnaire based on the literature review; the dimensions
emerged; as well as the links/relationships between them. Cassel and Symon (2004) argue
that the interview remains the most common method of data collection in qualitative
research and that allows a better understanding of the inherent categories and sub-categories
and of their relations.
The data analysis allows confirming the dimensions defined in the first study; to understand if
there are deviations or new suggestions/approaches; to identify a number of potentially
interesting variables; and to explore the relationship between the dimensions, to be tested,
using a more quantitative research model in the subsequent studies, in order to validate the
findings outlined. In this study the propositions were defined (hypotheses to test in further
studies), and they were presented the proposed research model.
In the third empirical study "Exploring the relationships between KIBS and innovation: a
quantitative analyse in Portuguese Firms" and in the fourth study "Internationalisation
strategy of KIBS: the effect of knowledge, cooperation and innovation" a quantitative
approach was chosen, using the questionnaire as a research tool administered to KIBS firms.
8
The sample was extracted from the Survey database to the National Scientific and
Technological Potential, with KIBS in activity in 2014/2015. The option for the questionnaire
as the instrument of analysis seems to be an appropriate tool, given that they can be useful
when one wants to gather information from a large number of individuals, and collecting
information in a consistent and comparable way is important (Ryan et al., 2002).
Upon completion of data collection, the results were obtained through the use of factor
analysis and linear regression that allowed drawing conclusions about the goals we proposed
us to achieve.
4. Structure This thesis is structured into three main sections. This first section includes the introduction,
which provides an overview of the literature related to the items that constitute the body of
the thesis, detailing the objectives and research questions, the units of analysis and the
underlying methods. The second section consists of four chapters corresponding to the four
empirical studies, previously mentioned. The third, and last section, presents the final
considerations of the thesis, the conclusions and the contributions of this investigation. A
summary of thesis structure is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Thesis Structure
Estudo 1: Knowledge Intensive Business Services Research: Bibliometric study of leading international
journals (1994-2014)
Exploring the relationships between KIBS and innovation: a quantitative analyse in portuguese firms
Estudo 2: KIBS’key dimensions: a qualitative study on innovation, knowledge, networks, location and
internationalization
Internationalisation strategy of KIBS: the effect of knowledge, cooperation and innovation
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
INTRODUCTION
9
Part II
10
11
CHAPTER 2
Knowledge Intensive Business Services research: Bibliometric study of leading international journals (1994-2014)1
Introduction
Over the last 20 years, Knowledge Intensive Business Services (KIBS) have grown considerably
in many European and Asian countries and they have a significant influence on innovation
activities across the whole economy (e.g. Shi et al., 2014; Hu et al., 2013; Abreu et al., 2010;
Viljamaa et al., 2010; Wood, 2005; Miles et al., 2000; Mas-Verdú et al., 2011). For this
reason, KIBS have recently become an important field of both theoretical (e.g. Murray et al.,
2009; Bettiol et al., 2012; Chae, 2012; Gimzauskiene and Staliuniene, 2010) and empirical
study (e.g. Miozzo and Grimshaw, 2005; Yam et al., 2011; Palacios-Marques et al., 2011;
Santos-Vijande et al., 2013a; Carmona-Lavado et al., 2013).
Regional innovation research still echoes national studies by assuming the primacy for
regional competitiveness of process-orientated, technologically driven innovation. It has
nevertheless recognised the growing importance for such innovation of regional institutional
interaction and flexibility and of key service expertise, especially through KIBS (Wood, 2005).
Santos-Vijande et al., (2013a) argue that as the dynamism of the KIBS sector has an impact
on the whole econ- omy, it is also necessary to understand the most advisable management
practices in KIBS to foster innovation and improved performance, although relatively few
studies have approached this issue.
In order to assess the KIBS structure in a certain field, an important method – bibliometric
analysis – can be used to analyse the trends in the published research. Bibliometric studies
have been used in several areas of business and economics (Dragos et al., 2014),
entrepreneurship (Ávilla et al., 2014), technology entrepre- neurship (Ferreira et al., 2015),
innovation (Toivanen, 2014), social innovation and social entrepreneurship (Philips et al.,
1 Este artigo encontra-se publicado, com a referência: Braga, A.M. & Marques, C.S. (2016), Knowledge Intensive Business Services Research: a bibliometric study of leading international journal (1994-2014). In J. Ferreira, M. Raposo, C. Fernandes & M. Dejardin (Eds.), Knowledge Intensive Services and regional Competitiveness". (pp.11-47). New York, Routledge. Disponível em : https://www.routledge.com/Knowledge-Intensive-Business-Services-and-Regional-Competitiveness/Ferreira-Raposo-Fernandes-Dejardin/p/book/9781138859364
12
2015), service innovation (Zhu and Guan, 2013), etc. However, no prior evidence of a
systematic literature review in the leading international journals in this area has been
found. In light of this consideration, this study aims to map and analyse the scientific
production within the field of KIBS, using the publications database ISI Web of Science – WoS,
for the period between 1994 and 2014.
Specifically, our objectives are: (1) to identify how the topic is defined in the international
literature and the progress achieved in the research field; (2) to evaluate and measure
the research productivity, key authors and scientific journals with the highest impact on this
research field and the networks of association between the respective institutions and
countries of origin; (3) and to analyse and map citations, co-citations and research themes
to identify which topics and dimensions are related to KIBS in order to support future
research.
This paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, the emergence of the field of study on KIBS
and an overview of the literature on its concept are discussed. Section 3 presents and
discusses the methodological features of the research, the sample and introduces the
bibliometric analysis method. The subsequent section presents the results in terms of the
KIBS’ core areas and presents visual maps of the KIBS network research. The last section
concludes the paper, presenting observations and suggesting opportunities for future
research.
Knowledge intensive business services
Although the term “Knowledge-intensive business services” has been used since the early
nineties, only recently it has become a major theme of investigation and empirical research
(Mas-Verdú et al., 2011). Despite this relatively recent concern of the academia in studying
KIBS, the literature has already provided many definitions of KIBS firms that, in many cases,
do not differ significantly, but rather display different nuances. The different definitions of
KIBS found in the literature can be explained by the purpose of the studies, in which a
definition serves a particular purpose.
Bettencourt et al., (2002, p.100), describe KIBS firms as those aiming to generate value-
added service activities, and that these activities consist in “the accumulation, creation,
or dissemination of knowledge for the purpose of developing a customised service or product
solution to satisfy the client’s needs.” The knowledge that serves as the basis for their
business can, according to Miozzo and Grimshaw (2005), be social and institutional
knowledge (e.g. accountancy; management consultancy) or technical knowledge (computer
R&D; engineering services). Many authors (e.g. Borodako et al., 2014; Muller and Zenker,
2001; Fernandes and Ferreira, 2013; Huang and Ji, 2013; Hakanen, 2014) refer to the
13
concept presented by Miles et al., (1995), who have distinguished KIBS as tradi- tional
professional KIBS (P-KIBS) and new technology-based services (T-KIBS). P-KIBS help their
clients to navigate or negotiate complex systems such as social, physical, psychological,
and biological systems (for example, marketing or consultancy services). T-KIBS are services
that rely heavily on professional knowledge (e.g. IT services, communication, and computer
services), thus, their employment structures are heavily weighted towards engineers and
scientists.
In light with this consideration, Wong and He (2005) include three major KIBS sectors in
their study: IT and related services, business and management consulting, and engineering
and technical services. Based on Borodako et al., (2014), the third type of division is
made according to the relationship of the KIBS to the (client) company and the market.
Here, three groups of KIBS are identified: market KIBS (key services: market research;
advertising; and research and experimental development in social sciences and
humanities); enterprise KIBS (IT and programming services; legal services; accounting and
tax advisory services; management advisory and PR services; temporary employment
agencies; and other recruitment services); and technical KIBS (multilevel KIBS – connecting
both the above groups of market and enterprise services: architectural activities; technical
testing and analysis; research and experimental development in natural sciences and
engineering; engineering activities).
According to Borodako et al., (2014), most definitions in the literature stress the following
key aspects of KIBS: they are offered by private business to other business (e.g. Hertog,
2000); they are based on knowledge or expertise – mostly highly advanced and related to a
specific field; and the consumption of the service usually improves the client company’s
intellectual capital. When focusing on the role of KIBS services in client innovation, three
different aspects can be perceived: KIBS act as (1) facilitators (if it supports a client firm in
its innovation process); (2) carriers (if it plays a role in transferring existing innovations
from one firm or industry to the client firm or industry); or (3) sources of innovation (if it plays
a major role in initiating and developing innovations in client firms, mostly in close interaction
with the client firm) (Hauknes, 1998).
A strong characteristic of KIBS firms, given the nature of their business and the importance of
knowledge on the society, is the impact they have on the economic tissue. Wong and He
(2005), with this respect, refer that KIBS firms are “group of services which are very
actively integrated into innovation systems by joint knowledge development with their
clients, and which consequently create considerable positive externalities and possibly
accelerate knowledge intensification across the economy”.
14
In the academia, KIBS literature has addressed the concept from several different
perspectives. The topic of KIBS can be interpreted in different ways and types of study. Table
1.1 provides some examples of how the literature has dealt with KIBS concept.
Table 1.1 KIBS concepts from the literature
Reference Definitions of KIBS
Miles et al. (1995) KIBS are services involving economic activities which are intended to result in the creation, accumulation or dissemination of knowledge.
Muller and Zenker (2001)
KIBS do not only “transmit” knowledge, in fact they play a crucial role in terms of “knowledge re-engineering”. KIBS has potentially as receptors, interfaces and “catalysators” in terms of knowledge-creation and diffusion. KIBS can be described as services offered by firms, usually to other firms, incorporating ‘a high intellectual value-added’.
Wong and He (2005, p. 27)
“KIBS firms’ innovation efforts extend far beyond their internal organisation to the service relationship and directly into the domain of service clients by providing competence enhancing knowledge services to their clients”.
Bettiol et al. (2011)
The KIBS sector constitutes a service subsector that includes establishments whose primary activities are mainly concerned with providing knowledge-intensive inputs to the business processes of other organisations, including private and public sector clients
Santos-Vijande et al. (2013)
KIBS are private companies or organizations which have a high degree of professional knowledge
Corrocher and Cusmano (2014)
KIBS are key players in innovation systems, particularly in advanced regions where manufacturing competitiveness largely depends on knowledge contents provided by highly specialized suppliers.
Shi et al. (2014) KIBS are becoming a major force in promoting innovation and that effect is highly related to the average level of human capital.
Doloreux and Laperriere (2014)
The KIBS firm has developed a core portfolio of services, methods or solutions and achieves growth through the penetration of new markets and/or client groups that demonstrate similar needs.
Many studies analyse the relevance of KIBS to innovation (e.g. He and Wong, 2009; Santos-
Vijande et al., 2013b; Mas-Tur and Soriano, 2014; Alvarez-Gonzalez and Gonzalez-Morales,
2014; Shi et al., 2014; Doloreux and Laperriere, 2014; Santos-Vijande et al., 2013b; He
and Wong, 2009) and it is increasingly rec- ognised that KIBS are key to innovation systems
(e.g. Mas-Verdú et al., 2011, Corrocher and Cusmano, 2014; Hu et al., 2013) and are
vectors of knowledge transmission (e.g. Skjolsvik et al., 2007; Larsen, 2001; Muller and
Zenker, 2001).
According to Di Maria et al., (2012), the literature so far pointed out that the spatial
proximity is necessary for sustaining the interaction between KIBS and the client.
Nevertheless, there are few theoretical or empirical analysis focusing on the role of the
relationship with the local context (Koch and Strotmann, 2006; Doloreux and Shearmur, 2012;
15
Huggins and Johnston, 2012; Peiker et al., 2012; Aslesen and Isaksen, 2007), which may be
vital for KIBS development (Koch and Strotmann, 2006).
Recent papers also analyse the relevance of KIBS with regards to the penetration in new
external markets (e.g. Doloreux and Laperriere, 2014; Di Maria et al., 2012, Abecassis-
Moedas et al., 2012, Peiker et al., 2012).
Bibliometric analysis of the KIBS literature
Selection of the articles
Considering the growth of academic interest in KIBS, this study attempts to provide a
comprehensive review of the existing studies, through a systematic review of the literature.
Bibliometrics is the mathematical and statistical analysis of communication in the form of
documents aiming to providing a relatively robust and less subjective method to analyse the
foundations of a scholarly discipline (Wallin, 2012). Bibliometric studies may be used to
examine, for instance, the most cited works, the co-citation networks and, to understand the
intellectual structure of literature (Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro, 2004). The analysis of
co-citations is often used to identify papers with higher impact (Zitt and Bassecoulard, 1994).
According to (Smith, 1981), two documents are considered co-cited when they are cited
together in other documents. Previous research has applied bibliometric analysis to e.g.,
measuring publication in leading management journals as a measure of institutional research
performance (Stahl et al., 1988).
In this study, the clusters and respective networks of references were obtained following the
methodological guidelines proposed by (van Eck and Waltman, 2010). The simple graphical
representations were provided by software packages such as SPSS and Pajek. For the
analyses, we used the software VOSviewer (www.vosviewer.com)i and CitNetExplorerii
(http://www.citnetexplorer.nl) which supported the construction of the bibliometric maps,
and TreeCloud.org (http://treecloud.univ-mlv.fr) to generate “tree of words”.
This research was based on a sample of international and national scientific papers collected
from the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), compiled by the Thomson Reuters online
database, which contains, in addition to the publications, bibliographic information about
authors, affiliations and citations.
The data collection was conducted through the indexed databases ISI Web of Sciencesiii, over
the last two decades (between 1994 and 2014) and according to the following criteria (Table
1.2). Firstly, we searched for publications using the research terms in the topic: “KIBS” or
"Knowledge Intensive Business Services" or "Knowledge-Intensive Business Services”, and we
16
found 267 articles (we found only one difference of 2 articles for the period 1900-2014, which
were related to patents). Then, we refined the results for the following criteria: (a)
document types: articles (excluding proceeding papers, review, and editorial materials) (and
we reduced the results to 181 articles); (b) data bases: web of science core collection
(resulting in 167 articles); (c) research domain: social sciences (158 articles); (d) research
area: business economics (there was no difference if we included operations research
management science) and, finally, we found 140 articles. The papers were selected on the
basis of their title, abstract and keywords. The citations identified were reviewed according
to the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1.3).
The search performed resulted in 140 scientific articles with publications dates between 1994
(1 article and the first being published since 1900, according to the criteria in our study) and
2014 (17). We considered articles published between January 1994 and December 2014iv. The
unit of analysis in this research is the publication, and the variables correspond to authors
and respective affiliations, journals, number of citations and cited references. The process of
literature collection took place during December 2014 until May 2015.
Table 1.2 Settings of the research
Basic search Timespan
Databases Research domain
Research areas
Document
type
TOPIC: "KIBS"
OR: "Knowledge Intensive Business Services"
OR: “Knowledge-Intensive Business Services"
From 1994 to
2014
Web of ScienceTM
Core Collection
Social Sciences
Business Economics
Article
Table 1.3 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Criteria Reasons for inclusion Reasons for exclusion
Pré-1994 Contributions toward knowledge intensive business services have developed in the past 20 years
All countries To ensure a cross-cultural view of KIBS
Editorial, Patent, Clinical Trial, Meeting, Review, other
Focus on high-quality peer-reviewed research
Theoretical and empirical articles
To capture all existing studies
Science Technology, Arts Humanities
To focus in the social sciences area – limited to one research domain
The emergence and evolution of KIBS
The literature on the Knowledge Intensive Business Services is a relatively new field of
research that has spread remarkably in the past 20 years. Knowledge Intensive Business
Services research has flourished in 1994, mainly in Europe and USA. The earlier published
17
paper found in WoS was written by Simone (Strambach, 1994), from University of Stuttgart,
Germany, and it was published in Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, a
journal published by Wiley-Blackwell (USA), which web of science categories are economics
and geography (2013 impact factor: 1,012). The article entitled “Knowledge Intensive
Business Services in the Rhine-Neckar Area” emphasizes the importance of network
relationships for knowledge-intensive service firms and shows that network relationships play
a key role in the interaction between suppliers and clients. Later, other authors have
explored this link (e.g., (Plaza et al., 2011, Hakanen, 2014, Najafi-Tavani et al., 2014).
The data in Figure 1.1 shows an increase in the number of articles on KIBS published, per
year, with particular emphasis on the last decade (about 94% of the total publications). It is
also important to mention that half of the papers (70) were published over the last three
years (Figure 1.2). Since 2008, this number has been greater than (or equal to) 10 every year.
In 2012 and 2013 the highest number of publications in the field, was achieved, with 30 and
23 articles published, respectively).
The 140 articles considered in our sample display an average citation rate of 12.2 %, with 31
of the articles never being cited and 55 have been cited between one (17) and five times (5).
Table 1.4 reveals the top-40 ranking of papers in terms of highest number of citations.
Figure 1.1 Number of articles by year of publication
18
Figure 1.2 Articles published by year
19
Table 1.4 Most-cited articles in the field of KIBS
Total citations
Total citations
1 (Muller and Zenker, 2001) 216 21 (Murray et al., 2009) 23
2 (Hipp and Grupp, 2005) 172 22 (Hauknes and Knell, 2009) 22 3 (Bettencourt et al., 2002) 165 23 (Shearmur and Doloreux, 2009) 20
4 (Toivonen and Tuominen, 2009) 63 24 (Skjolsvik et al., 2007) 19
5 (Miozzo and Grimshaw, 2005) 62 25 (Grimshaw and Miozzo, 2006) 19
6 (Antonelli, 1998) 54
26 (Doloreux and Shearmur, 2012) 18
7 (Amara et al., 2009) 42 27 (Tseng et al., 2011) 17
8 (Amara et al., 2008) 39 28 (Consoli and Elche-Hortelano, 2010) 17
9 (Yam et al., 2011) 34 29 (Hoyler et al., 2008) 16
10 (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008) 33 30 (Tomlinson, 1999) 16
11 (Larsen, 2001) 32 31 (Ofarrell and Moffat, 1995) 16
12 (Abreu et al., 2010) 30 32 (Bader, 2008) 14
13 (Wood, 2005) 30 33 (Mas-Verdú et al., 2011) 13
14 (Aslesen and Isaksen, 2007) 29 34 (Grimshaw and Miozzo, 2009) 11
15 (Aarikka-Stenroos and Jaakkola, 2012) 28 35 (Doloreux and Mattsson, 2008) 11
16 (Miles et al., 2000) 28 36 (Koch and Strotmann, 2006) 11
17 (Andersson and Hellerstedt, 2009) 27 37 (Ramsey et al., 2005) 10
18 (Wong and He, 2005) 27 38 (Manning et al., 2010) 9
19 (De Marchi, 2012) 26 39 (Koschatzky and Stahlecker, 2010) 9
20 (Corrocher et al., 2009) 25 40 (Bengtsson and Dabhilkar, 2009) 9
The top six studies with the highest number of citations (more than 50 citations) are:
1 Muller, E. & Zenker, A. (2001). Business services as actors of knowledge transformation:
the role of KIBS in regional and national innovation systems. Research Policy, 30(9),
Special Issue: SI, 1501-1516. (215 citations)
2 Hipp, C. & Grupp, H. (2005). Innovation in the service sector: The demand for service-
specific innovation measurement concepts and typologies. Research Policy, 34(4), 517-
535. (172 citations)
3 Bettencourt, LA; Ostrom, AL; Brown, SW; Roundtree, RI (2002). Client co-production in
knowledge-intensive business services. California Management Review, 44(4), 100-128.
(165 citations)
4 Toivonen, M. & Tuominen, T. (2009). Emergence of innovations in services. Service
Industries Journal, 29 (7), 887-902. (63 citations)
20
5 Miozzo, M. & Grimshaw, D. (2005). Modularity and innovation in knowledge-intensive
business services: IT outsourcing in Germany and the UK. Research Policy, 34(9), 1419-
1439. (62 citations)
6 Antonelli, C. (1998). Localized technological change, new information technology and the
knowledge-based economy: The European evidence. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,
8(2), 177-198. (54 citations)
The most cited paper (Muller and Zenker, 2001) provides an overview of the role and function
of KIBS in innovation systems and their knowledge production, transformation and diffusion
activities. This study focuses on innovation interactions between manufacturing small and
medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and KIBS and concludes that innovation activities link SMEs
and KIBS through the process of knowledge generation and diffusion. The investigation follows
a methodology based on the examination of firm samples located in five different regions in
France and Germany. (Hipp and Grupp, 2005) focused in the concept of innovation in the
service sector, suggesting that the notion of innovation, well established in the manufacturing
sector, cannot simply be transposed to the service sector. The authors analysed selected
results of the German innovation survey and introduced a new typology aiming to obtain a
better understanding of innovation in services. They draw special attention to the inclusion of
knowledge-intensive business services because of their particular importance for innovation
processes. (Bettencourt et al., 2002) argued that a common characteristic of knowledge-
intensive business service (KIBS) firms is that clients routinely play a critical role in co-
producing the service solution along with the service provider, which can have a strong effect
on both the quality of the service delivered and on customers’ satisfaction with the
knowledge-based service solution. In the authors’ perspective, by strategically managing
client co-production, service providers can improve operational efficiency, develop more
optimal solutions, and generate a sustainable competitive advantage. This was based on
research conducted with an IT consulting firm and work done with other knowledge-intensive
business service providers. (Toivonen and Tuominen, 2009) provided analytical and detailed
discussion on the nature of service innovations and their emergence. The theories examined
are multi-disciplinary including general service theories, general innovation theories and
theories associated to new service development and innovation management. This was based
on two empirical case studies in Finland in the fields of real estate and construction services
and of knowledge-intensive business services. Drawing on an empirical study of IT outsourcing
in the UK and Germany, (Miozzo and Grimshaw, 2005) explored the lessons for modularity
that can be drawn from the outsourcing of KIBS. In their perspective, given of the
inseparability of information and production technologies, IT outsourcing is habitually
accompanied by wider transformations in clients' production technologies, which results in
the need for knowledge and organisational coordination in the form of the transfer of staff
from the client and the retained IT organisation. According to this approach, modularity is
often presented as a design strategy that stimulates innovation; however, the intangibility of
services exacerbates the conflicts between clients and suppliers, which may present obstacles
21
to innovation. (Antonelli, 1998) focuses in the co-evolution of new information and
communication technologies and the knowledge-intensive business industry to show that new
information technology affects the actual conditions of information, its basic characteristics
of appropriation and tradability, favouring the role of business services as forces of
interaction between knowledge components in the generation of new technology. Using
input/output statistics of the European economy in the second half of 1980's, the author
found the existence of a correlation between the use of business and communication services
and confirmed their high output elasticity. The respective citation network is presented in
Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.3 Citation network
Evolution and co-citation networks
The initial sample of 140 scientific papers was reduced to papers with at least 10 citations,
resulting in a reduced sample of 37 articles quoted 1,435 times. Based on these 37 articles,
we performed a co-citation analysis in order to build the respective network, and the size of
the sample was reduced to 23 papers (see Figure 1.4) grouped into four clusters (see Table
1.5), which supports the main dimensions related to KIBS, namely: cluster 1 points for
innovation: concepts and process, cluster 2 addresses the relation between Knowledge and
KIBS, cluster 3 identify articles related to innovation networks and cooperation, and cluster 4
stands for Location and Relationship with Clients.
22
Concerning to the sources, the 140 papers included in the sample were published in 44
academic journals (with 1.707 citations) and as one can see in Table 1.6, 19 journals display,
at least, 10 citations.
The journals with the highest citation number are Research Policy (592 citations), Service
Industries Journal (329 citations), California Management Review (184 citations), Journal of
Evolutionary Economics (104 citations), Industry and Innovation (62 citatitons), Technovation
(46 citations), and International Journal of Technology Management (41 citations). With
regards to the number of papers published, special emphasis should be given to Service
Industries Journal (with 27 articles), followed by the Research Policy (with 9 articles), the
International Journal of Technology Management (with 8 articles) and the Industry and
Innovation (with 7 articles). Some of these papers are also those that have the greatest
impact factorv, such as International Journal of Technology Management (2,704), followed by
Service Industries Journal (2,617) and Research Policy (2,598). The respective network is
presented in Figure 1.5 and as can be seen, the co-citation analysis reveals five clusters
(Table 1.7).
Figure 1.4 Co-citation network
23
Table 1.5 Resulting clusters from the co-citation analysis performed on the 23 most cited articles
Cluster 1: Innovation: concepts and process
Article Focus of the study Method/ Sample Main Insights
(Amara et al., 2009)
To develop indicators to capture forms or types of innovation in KIBS; To propose a conceptual framework inspired by the knowledge-based theory using different categories of knowledge assets as explanatory variables.
Multivariate probit regression models 1124 Small and Medium KIBS operating in the province of Québec, in Canada
Process, strategic, managerial and marketing innovations are complementary; and the different forms of innovation are explained by different explanatory variables
(Drejer, 2004)
To apply innovation concepts developed especially for services, thereby contributing to the existing divide between manufacturing and services.
----
Reference to Schumpeter, in particular innovation, as a contrast to activities based on routine systems, in service oriented studies would add a needed theoretical and conceptual strengthening to service innovation studies
(Gallouj and Weinstein, 1997)
To lay the foundations of a theory that can be used to interpret innovation processes in the service sector. ----
Various modes of innovation are highlighted and interpreted in terms of a characteristic dynamic.
(Hipp and Grupp, 2005)
To support the conceptual findings and to identify potential improvements (on innovation).
German innovation survey
Introduces a new typology with a view to obtain a better understanding of innovation in services. Special attention is directed towards the inclusion of KIBS that are of particular importance for innovation processes.
(Miles et al., 1995)
To highlight the contributions of KIBS to innovation; provide the agenda for coherent analyses of KIBS innovation processes; and, draw recommendations for a consideration of KIBS in policy-making.
Case studies of innovative KIBS
The knowledge intensity of all sectors of the economy is increasing. R&D becomes increasingly the basis of new techniques, and networks of innovators become increasingly the basis of accumulation of the knowledge that results in innovation.
(Miozzo and Soete, 2001)
To outline a taxonomy of services based on their technological linkages with manufacturing and other service sectors. The effect of recent technological changes on the transformations in business organisation, industry structure, internationalization, and the role of transnational corporations in these technology-intensive service sectors is explored.
----
The taxonomy identifies a number of technology-intensive service sectors closely related to the use of information that are essential to growth.
24
(Pavitt, 1984)
To describe and explain sectoral patterns of technical change.
2000 significant innovations in Britain since 1945
Innovating firms principally in electronics and chemicals are relatively big, and they develop innovations over a wide range of specific product groups within their principal sector, but relatively few outside. Firms principally in mechanical and instrument engineering are relatively small and specialised, and they exist in symbiosis with large firms, in scale intensive sectors like metal manufacture and vehicles, who make a significant contribution to their own process technology. In textile firms, on the other hand most process innovations come from suppliers.
Cluster 2: Knowledge: creation and sharing, co-production and transfer Article Focus of the study Method/ Sample Main Insights
(Bettencourt et al., 2002)
To develop co-production management model
25 in-depth interviews were conducted with twelve TechCo associates and thirteen clients.
The co-production model illustrates the importance of considering clients as "partial employees" of the service provider firms and applying traditional employee management practices to developing effective client partnerships.
(Miozzo and Grimshaw, 2005)
To explore the lessons for modularity that can be drawn from the outsourcing of KIBS.
Drawing on an empirical study of IT outsourcing in the UK and Germany.
This results in the need for knowledge and organisational coordination in the form of the transfer of staff from the client and the retained IT organisation. Modularity is often presented as a design strategy that stimulates innovation.
(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)
The main contribution of the book “The Knowledge-Creating Company” is an outline of knowledge creation, use and forms of knowledge.
It includes a novel theory from two authors supported by their case studies from Japanese industry and an extensive philosophical introduction into Western and Eastern epistemology.
The types of implicit knowledge should add a third dimension which may also be important for knowledge-creating, innovative organizations.
25
Cluster 3: Innovation networks and cooperation Article Focus of the study Method/Sample Main Insights
(Bessant and Rush, 1995)
This paper examines the implications of technology transfer within such models, identifying the components of managerial capabilities required to absorb and assimilate new inputs of technology required for successful transfer.
----
Recent models of the innovation activity depict the process as non-linear, and characterised by multiple interactions, systems integration and complex networks. Particular attention is paid to the intermediary roles which can be played by consultants in bridging the `managerial gap', the changing nature and scope of services offered by consultants and the contributions they can make within technology policy.
(Miles et al., 1995)
This report aims to highlight the contributions of KIBS to innovation; provide the agenda for coherent analyses of KIBS innovation processes; and, draw recommendations for a consideration of KIBS in policy-making.
Case studies of innovative KIBS
There is much evidence that the knowledge intensity of all sectors of the economy is increasing. R&D becomes increasingly the basis of new techniques, and networks of innovators become increasingly the basis of accumulation of the knowledge that results in innovation.
(Muller and Zenker, 2001)
Focusing on innovation interactions between manufacturing small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and KIBS, the empirical analyses grasps KIBS position in five regional contexts.
----
The paper gives an overview of the role and function of KIBS in innovation systems and their knowledge production, transformation and diffusion activities. The analysis leads to the conclusion that innovation activities link SMEs and KIBS through the process of knowledge generation and diffusion.
(Tether and Hipp, 2002)
To examine patterns of innovation and sources of competitiveness, the purpose is to investigate how these patterns differ across services, and in particular how knowledge intensive and technical service firms differ from services more generally.
German service firms
The analysis finds a high degree of customization in the output of service firms, especially amongst the knowledge intensive and technical service firms, the innovation activities of which are also relatively more oriented to product innovation. Knowledge intensive and technical service firms also invest more heavily in information communication technologies, whilst other services invest heavily in non-ICTs. Thus significant diversity is found between the groups of firms examined, but much diversity also exists within the groups.
(Windrun and Tomlinson, 1999)
The paper draws an important distinction between the quantity of services in a domestic economy and the degree of connectivity between services and other economic activities. Particular attention is paid to the role and impact of knowledge-intensive service sectors to international competitiveness.
In addition to the UK and Germany, data is drawn from the Netherlands and Japan.
Using these four comparative cases it explores the distinction between a high representation of services in the domestic economy, and the innovation spill-overs facilitated by a high degree of connectivity between services and other economic sectors within a domestic.
26
Cluster 4: Location and Relationship with Clients Article Focus of the study Method/ Sample Main Insights
(Corrocher et al., 2009)
To investigate the sectoral variety and common patterns across different typologies of KIBS
Original survey-based firm-level dataset: The case of Lombardy - a highly developed manufacturing area
When examining in more depth the variables that are associated with cluster membership, one finds that firm strategy is the most significant determinant, with size, customer location, and training also playing a role in defining cluster specificities.
(Hertog, 2000)
To make an analysis of the role played by knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) in innovation. It presents a four-dimensional model of (services) innovation that point to the significance of such non-technological factors in innovation as new service concepts, client interfaces and service delivery system. The various roles of service firms in innovation processes are mapped out by identifying five basic service innovation patterns.
---
KIBS are seen to function as facilitator, carrier or source of innovation, and through their almost symbiotic relationship with client firms, some KIBS function as co-producers of innovation. In addition to discrete and tangible forms of knowledge exchange, process-oriented and intangible forms of knowledge flows are crucial in such relationships.
(Freel, 2006)
To draw broad comparisons between patterns of innovation expenditure and output, innovation networking, knowledge intensity and competition within KIBS and manufacturing firms. The principal interest of the paper is in identifying the factors associated with higher levels of innovativeness, within each sector, and the extent to which such ‘‘success’’ factors vary across sectors.
Estimation of the production functions takes the form of three ordered logit equations ‘Survey of Enterprise in Northern Britain’: 1,161 small firms (KIBS; N5563 and manufacturing firms; N5598). KIBS disaggregated as technology based KIBS (t-KIBS; N5264) and professional KIBS (p-KIBS; N5299).
The results of the analysis appear to offer support for some widely held beliefs about the relative roles of ‘‘softer’’ and ‘‘harder’’ sources of knowledge and technology within services and manufacturing.
(Koch and Stahlecker,
To analyse interrelationships between KIBS foundations and their respective innovation and production systems
Qualitative and conceptual in-depth
The analysis has shown that, and how, the regional techno-economic and institutional structures influence the early
27
2006)
by performing qualitative and conceptual in-depth studies of three German metropolitan regions. The present contribution has mapped out some of the interrelationships between regional innovation systems and KIBS foundations in a qualitative and explorative way.
studies of three German metropolitan regions.
development of the KIBS sector. The main reasons for the observed different foundation patterns in the regions examined lie in the different endowment with (potential) incubator organizations providing knowledge, human capital, and opportunities for the foundation of KIBS as well as for their sustained development. Thus, especially in the early stages of the development of newly founded KIBS, geographical proximity to their suppliers and clients seems to play a crucial role. This fact can also be attributed to the prominent role of (tacit) knowledge in the examined sector.
(Miles, 2005)
To examine KIBS in the European Union, highlighting key similarities and differences in their development across Member States. KIBS are one of the fastest growing areas of the European economy, and are increasingly important contributors to the performance of the sectors who are their clients.
Statistics on KIBS in the European Union are examined. Scenario analysis is used to examine policy issues concerning KIBS. These are based on deskwork: group discussion would be a valuable complement to this approach.
KIBS are continuing to grow at rapid rates, and are experiencing qualitative change. The growth is associated with outsourcing, the internationalization of services, and the growth in demand for certain forms of knowledge. Many KIBS sectors are becoming more concentrated (though most KIBS sectors feature a higher share of small firms than does the economy as a whole).
(Simmie and Strambach, 2006)
To develop a theoretical position for understanding the role of services in innovation in post-industrial societies. The paper suggests a systematic theoretical approach to understanding the currently under-theorized role of services in general and KIBS in particular in innovation. It also points to the importance of the geography of specialized services.
This study develops an evolutionary and institutional approach to understanding the role of certain specialist services in innovation and illustrates how significant they are for the economies of large metropolitan areas in England and Germany.
The paper argues that the role of KIBS in innovation may be understood theoretically in terms of evolutionary and institutional economics. Urban economies are path dependent interactive learning systems that develop individually through time. They are increasingly characterized by networked production systems in which KIBS play a key role in the transfer of bespoke knowledge between actors both within and from outside individual cities. As a result, KIBS make a significant and place specific contribution to innovation in the cities where they are located.
28
Table 1.6 Top sources of citations in the field of KIBS
Total
citations Total
articles
2013 Impact Factor
Research Policy 592 9 2,598
Service Industries Journal 329 27 2,617
California Management Review 184 2 1,944 Journal of Evolutionary Economics 104 5 ,675 Industry and Innovation 62 7 1,116
Technovation 46 2 2,704
International Journal of Technology Management 41 8 ,492
Regional Studies 39 6 1,756
Industrial Marketing Management 36 4 1,897 Journal of Economic Geography 26 3 2,821
Journal of Knowledge Management 25 4 1,257
Journal of International Marketing 23 1 2,000
Service Business 20 6 ,878
Organizational Studies 19 1 2,504
Knowledge Management Research & Practice 16 3 ,683 Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografies 14 2 1,012
Journal OF Business & Industrial Marketing 13 3 ,907 Human Relations 11 1 1,867
International Small Business Journal 11 1 1,397 Economia Política 7 5 ,533
29
Figure 1.5 Network of co-cited sources in the 140 articles and respective clusters
30
Table 1.7 Clusters resulting from the most cited sources (number of citations in brackets)
Cluster 1 – Economics, Geography & Environmental studies
Cluster 2 – Engineering, operations research & Management Studies
Regional Studies (112) Research Policy (450)
Industry and Innovation (72) Service Industries Journal (187)
Economics of Innovation and new technology (62) Technovation (72)
Industrial and Corporate Change (62) R&D Management (39)
European Planning Studies (56) International Journal of Technology
Urban Studies (51) Management (22)
Journal of Economic Geography (49)
American Economic Review (47)
Cluster 3 – Business Cluster 4 – Management
Industrial Marketing Management (109) Strategic Management Journal (259)
Journal of Marketing (92) Academic of Management Review (112)
California Management Review (66) Academic of Management Journal (93)
Harvard Business Review (73) Organization Studies (40)
Journal of Business Research (70) Management International Review (24)
Journal of Business & Ind. Marketing (27) Journal of International Management (11)
Journal of International Marketing (17)
Cluster 5 – Strategy, Management, Operations, Information & Library Science
Management Decision (54)
Foresight (30)
Journal of Knowledge Management (50)
Regarding authorship, the results show that 275 authorsvi are responsible for the 140 articles
included in the sample. It is interesting to note that the authors with more publications are:
Doloreux, D. (8 publications) and Miozzo, M. (6 publications), followed by Santos-Vijande ML;
Landry, R.; Amara, N.; Grimshaw, D.; Shearmur, R. and Balaz, V. (all with 4 publications,
each one). It’s also important to highlight that one can find 112 different first authors in the
sample, from 92 different institutions and 30 different countries.
Table 1.8 shows the 50 most frequently cited authors, as well as the number of citations per
author and the number of articles published by authorvii. As can be seen, 38 of this authors
have at least 10 citations and the most cited authors are Muller, E. (215 citations), Hipp, C.
(172 citations) and Bettencourt, LA (165 citations). The authors with higher numbers of
articles published are Doloreux, D. (5 articles), Bader, MA (4 articles) and Santos-Vijande, L.
(4 articles).
Following the overall analysis of the 140 articles, Figure 1.6 shows the co-citations of authors
considering the 38 authors who were cited at least 10 times. These 38 authors were grouped
into clusters as shown in Table 1.9.
31
Table 1.8 Top-cited authors in the field of KIBS (first author)
Authors Total citations
Total articles
Authors Total citations
Total articles
Muller, E 215 1 Consoli, Davide 17 1
Hipp, C 172 1 Tseng, Chun-Yao 17 1
Bettencourt, LA 165 1 Hoyler, Michael 16 1
Amara, Nabil 84 3 Ofarrell, PN 16 1
Miozzo, Marcela 64 2 Tomlinson, M 16 1
Toivonen, Marja 63 1 Bader, Martin A. 14 1
Antonelli, C 54 1 Balaz, V 13 4
Aslesen, Heidi Wiig 37 2 Mas-Verdu, Francisco 13 1
Yam, Richard C. M 34 1 Ramsey, Elaine 13 2
Doloreux, David 33 5 Santos-Vijande, ML 12 4
Andersson, Martin 32 2 Bettiol, Marco 11 2
Klerkx, Laurens 32 1 Koch, Andreas 11 1
Larsen, JN 32 1 Najafi-Tavani, Zhale 10 3
Abreu, Maria 30 1 Bengtsson, Lars 9 1
Grimshaw, Damian 30 2 Koschatzky, Knut 9 1
Wood, P 30 1 Manning, Stephan 9 1
Aarikka-Stenroos, Le 28 1 Toivonen, M 9 1
Miles, I 28 1 Javalgi, Rajshekhar 8 1
Wong, PK 27 1 Musolesi, Antonio 8 1
Corrocher, Nicoletta 26 3 Pardos, Eva 8 1
De Marchi, Valentina 26 2 Zaefarian, Ghasem 8 2
Murray, Janet Y 23 1 Camuffo, Arnaldo 7 1
Hauknes, Johan 22 1 Kaepylae, Jonna 7 1
Shearmur, Richard 20 1 Viljamaa, Anmari 7 1
Skjolsvik, Tale 19 1 Chiaroni, Davide 6 1
32
Figure 1.6 Network of co-cited authors in the 140 articles and respective clusters
Affiliation and collaboration networks
Concerning to affiliation and collaboration networks it’s possible to find 156 institutions, from
34 countries that underlie the 140 articles included in the sample of this research.
Table 1.9 Clusters of most cited authors (number of citations in brackets)
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Den Hertog, P (49) Bettencourt, LA (29) Muller, E (74) Miles, I (28) Miles, I (29) Cohen, WM (28) Miles, I (29) Freel, M. (20) Muller, E (28) Nonaka, I (19) Tether, BS (16) Simmie, J (17) Amara, N (13) Barney, J (13) Windrum, P (12) Corrocher (15) Drejer, I (13) Boschma, RA (11) Czarnitzdi, D (11) Koch, A (12) Pavitt, K (13) Miozzo, M (11) Wong, PK (11) Aslesen, HW (10) Hipp, C (11) Zahra, SA (11) Bessant, J (10) Sundbo, J (11) Grant, RM (10) Strambach, S (10) Miozzo, M (10) Teece, DJ (10)
The institutions with more researchers publishing in this field are located in Europe (mainly
England, Italy and Spain) or Canada, although authors almost from all continents (excluding
Africa) were included in the sample. The institutions top five ranking includes University of
Manchester (England), University of Padua (Italy), University of Ottawa (Canada), University
33
of Laval (Canada) and University of Oviedo (Spain). Some of these institutions present the
greatest number of co-authorships (Table 1.10).
As it can be seen, most of the paired of institutions term of co-authorship are geographically
near, for instance, University of Leeds and University of Manchester, with 4 co-authored
publications. Notwithstanding, one should also mention the international co-autorship:
University of Manchester (England), Suffolk University (USA) and Bocconi University (Italy)
with 2 co-authored papers.
Word networks
Aiming to increase our understanding of the subjects discussed in the publications of KIBS
field, a lexical analysis of the words that can be more frequently found in the bibliographic
database was conducted, considering the title and abstracts of the 140 papers included in the
sample, which allowed to generate a “cloud words” (Figure 1.7) formed by the words that
occurred more frequently in those texts (Table 1.11). Tittle and abstracts of all papers were
exported to the French site TreeCloud.org that generates a “tree of words”, where the words
are grouped as clouds concerning their semantic proximity within the text. The result show
three main groups of words, one of them related to studies and activities of the firms,
manufacturing, services and KIBS, highlighting innovation and knowledge. A second group
refers to management strategies and business performance, with particular emphasis in
external activities as the relationships and clients. The last group focuses on the results and
technology uses and also in the growth and development of the sector and the economy.
Table 1.10 Top institutions with co-authored publications in the field of KIBS
Institution 1 Number of Articles
Institution 2
University of Leeds (England) 4 University of Manchester (England) Bocconi University (Italy) 2 Insubria University (Italy) University of Oviedo (Spain) 2 University Autonoma of Madrid (Spain) University of Oviedo (Spain) 2 University of Extremadura (Spain) University of Laval (Canada) 2 University of Quebec (Canada) University of Ottawa (Canada) 2 University of Quebec (Canada) Seinäjoki Univ. of Applied Sciences (Finland)
2 Lappeenranta Univ. of Technology (Finland)
Institution 1 Institution 2 Institution 3 Suffolk University (USA) Bocconi University (Italy) University of Manchester (England) (2 articles)
34
Figure 1.7 Word Network
Table 1.11 Count higher frequencies of words
Word Word Count Word Word Count Knowledge 443 External 44 KIBS 343 Empirical 44 Innovation 290 Use/using 43/39 Service/services 116/108 Growth 42 Firms 212 Data 39 Intensive 197 Innovative 38 Business_services 187 Clients 37 Paper 113 Approach 37 Based 85 Literature 36 Study 75 Relationship 35 Performance 72 Value 35 Results 70 Resources 34 Research 67 Studies 34 Business 66 Effects 34 Development, 55 Client 33 Activities 55 Technology 33 Management 50 Production 33 Manufacturing 48 Sector 32 Analysis 46 Economy 32 Strategies 46 Article 32 Role 45 Related 32
Based on the bibliometric study presented so that, there seems to be evidence that KIBS
research is extremely relevant, since the number of papers and researchers is not, yet, very
35
high. In addition, in Portugal this field of research displays a very limited representation, with
only there are just four papers published in Web of Science (the first one was published in
2012).
Conclusions and perspectives for research
Increasingly researches attached importance to the field of KIBS, which was an emerging
research field. This paper used the complex network analysis of bibliometric analysis to study
the KIBS field, in order to depict the intellectual structure of KIBS, highlighting the
maturation of the field. The study also provides information about scientific journals,
authors, affiliations and countries of the existing literature, in a coherence effort.
The paper used the Web of Science database, for the period between 1994 and 2014. We used
the query terms “KIBS”, “Knowledge Intensive Business Services” and “Knowledge-Intensive
Business Services” in the bibliographic field “Topic” to search related publications, and we
found 140 papers, after redefine document types (using only articles), research domain
(Social Sciences) and research areas (business economics).
The study considered keywords, authors, sources and other subject categories of an article as
actors to establish the keyword co-ocurrance network, authors’ collaboration, source network
and the subject category co-ocurrance network. The linkage of the keywords in the keyword
co-ocurrance network indicates that both appeared in one paper, and the same for the
authors, which means they cooperated in one paper, at least. Similar to the linkage of
sources or to other subject categories.
Despite the noticeable increase in the last decades, KIBS research is still an emerging
theoretical field. The division of KIBS into four clusters brought coherence to its analysis.
These clusters reflect the key dimensions that allow a better understanding about the
conceptual definition of KIBS, the interaction with other firms and its role in the economy.
This study aimed to find the most important keywords, researchers, scientific journals,
subject categories and the development process of hot topics in the field of KIBS. After
identifying how the topic is defined in the international literature and the progress achieved
in the research field, in a first moment, and evaluating/measuring the research productivity,
key authors and scientific journals with the highest impact on this research field, and the
networks of association between the respective institutions and countries of origin, some
characteristics of these networks were analysed. It allowed us to identify topics and
dimensions which are related to KIBS in order to support future research.
In the subject category co-occurrence network, the hot categories were plus Business and
Economics (according to our redefinition), Strategy, Operation Research and Management
Studies, Geography and Environmental studies, Engineering and Information and Library
36
Science. As one can see, KIBS research is applied in many areas, therefore researchers could
do more empirical analysis in other industries except for IT services, communication, and
computer services. It may be creative to apply KIBS theory to some different areas, for
instance, an emerging area in the literature is the tourism sector.
With respect to keywords, we found that the relationship between the studies became more
and more close. As the academics in the service innovation field, gradually turned into a
research system (Zhu and Guan, 2013). According to the authors, some hot topics were
focused on for a long time, such as customer orientation and telecommunication, and others
were changeable with years, market or information process over the period 2004-2005,
globalization and collaboration over the period 2006-2007, then the focus were to innovation
process and service innovation model over the period 2008-2009, and shifted into internet and
network effects over the period 2010-2011. This study searched for analyse the research
situation, and found the research focus of the field of innovation and knowledge. Few of the
papers on the sample used subject category to establish networks and interaction between
KIBS and the client. These findings can be useful to give directions to future research.
In our research, we found that, geographically, the highest number of publications on KIBS
field, in leading international journals, is found in Europe (especially, England, Italy and
Spain), and followed by Canada, USA and Asian countries (with special emphasis on China).
For instance, we did not find any publication of African researchers and only one article by
Latin American researchers (from Brazil). Co-authoring relationships from different
institutions in one country were found but rarely international co-authorships. Only two
articles in international co-authorship, we highlight University of Manchester (England),
Bocconi University (Italy) and Suffolk University (USA). Manchester University (England) is the
institutions with more co-authorship relationships, with other four publications with
researchers from University of Leeds (England). It seems to be possible to conclude that
internationalization is a still weak feature in KIBS research. In addition, as the collaboration
between KIBS and other firms brings recognized benefits to the latter (Wong and He, 2005) as
well as for the whole economy (Shi et al., 2014), it would also be beneficial to take this
collaborative research to an international level. Furthermore, internationalization is a topic
that seems to gain prominence in the literature on KIBS (Doloreux and Laperriere, 2014). In
the light of these results, internationalization will be a dimension to be explored in future
investigations.
This study uses only the ISI Web of Science database (so we did not consider other important
databases) and involves articles published in journals exclusively allocated to the categories
of business and economics. Despite its limitations, this study is one of the first attempts to
systematically map the research on KIBS using bibliometric tools. Several different
bibliometric methods can be used to analyse the same sample and compare the results of
37
different means, as well as studying literature in different periods or using different
databases to find different research focuses.
The analysis of 140 scientific articles contributes to the literature on KIBS, and the structure
form on the analysis provides a solid basis for how to conceptualize KIBS in future research.
Notes i “VOSviewer can (for example) be used to construct maps of authors or journals based on
cocitation data or to construct maps of keywords based on co-occurrence data. The program offers a viewer that allows bibliometric maps to be examined in full detail. VOSviewer can display a map in various different ways, each emphasizing a different aspect of the map. It has functionality for zooming, scrolling, and searching, which facilitates the detailed examination of a map. The viewing capabilities of VOSviewer are especially useful for maps containing at least a moderately large number of items (e.g., at least 100 items). Most computer programs that are used for bibliometric mapping do not display such maps in a satisfactory way” (van Eck and Waltman, 2010, p. 524).
ii CitNetExplorer is a software tool for visualizing and analysing citation networks of scientific publications. The tool allows citation networks to be imported directly from the Web of Science database. Citation networks can be explored interactively, for instance by drilling down into a network and by identifying clusters of closely related publications.
iii The academic community usually recognizes ISI journals as “certified journals”, and the ones bearing a prominent role in scientific knowledge diffusion.
iv Last updated on May 6, 2015. v Impact factor is a quantitative measure citation-based of the importance and significance
of a scientific journal GARFIELD, E. (1979) Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1, 359-375. Considering impact factor as a gross approximation of the reputation and overall scientific standing of academic journals in which articles have been published, we included 2013 impact factor of journals referred.
vi Although there is a potential danger for mistakes arising from changes in the authors’ names.
vii It refers to the first author of the paper.
38
References
AARIKKA-STENROOS, L. & JAAKKOLA, E. (2012) Value co-creation in knowledge intensive business services: A dyadic perspective on the joint problem solving process. Industrial Marketing Management, 41, 15-26.
AARIKKA-STENROOS, L. & JAAKKOLA, E. (2012) Value co-creation in knowledge intensive business services: A dyadic perspective on the joint problem solving process. Industrial Marketing Management, 41, 15-26.
ABREU, M., GRINEVICH, V., KITSON, M. & SAVONA, M. (2010) Policies to enhance the 'hidden innovation' in services: evidence and lessons from the UK. SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL, 30, 99-118.
AMARA, N., LANDRY, R. & DOLOREUX, D. (2009) Patterns of innovation in knowledge-intensive business services. SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL, 29, 407-430.
AMARA, N., LANDRY, R. & TRAORE, N. (2008) Managing the protection of innovations in knowledge-intensive business services. Research Policy, 37, 1530-1547.
ANDERSSON, M. & HELLERSTEDT, K. (2009) Location Attributes and Start-ups in Knowledge-Intensive Business Services. Industry and Innovation, 16, 103-121.
ANTONELLI, C. (1998) Localized technological change, new information technology and the knowledge-based economy: The European evidence. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 8, 177-198.
ASLESEN, H. W. & ISAKSEN, A. (2007) Knowledge intensive business services and urban industrial development. SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL, 27, 321-338.
BADER, M. A. (2008) Managing intellectual property in the financial services industry sector: Learning from Swiss Re. Technovation, 28, 196-207.
BENGTSSON, L. & DABHILKAR, M. (2009) Manufacturing outsourcing and its effect on plant performance-lessons for KIBS outsourcing. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 19, 231-257.
BESSANT, J. & RUSH, H. (1995) Building bridges for innovation: the role of consultants in technology transfer. Research Policy, 24, 97-114.
BETTENCOURT, L. A., OSTROM, A. L., BROWN, S. W. & ROUNDTREE, R. I. (2002) Client co-production in knowledge-intensive business services. California Management Review, 44, 100-+.
CONSOLI, D. & ELCHE-HORTELANO, D. (2010) Variety in the knowledge base of Knowledge Intensive Business Services. Research Policy, 39, 1303-1310.
CORROCHER, N., CUSMANO, L. & MORRISON, A. (2009) Modes of innovation in knowledge-intensive business services evidence from Lombardy. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 19, 173-196.
DE MARCHI, V. (2012) Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Research Policy, 41, 614-623.
DOLOREUX, D. & MATTSSON, H. (2008) To What Extent do Sectors "Socialize'' Innovation Differently? Mapping Cooperative Linkages in Knowledge-Intensive Industries in the Ottawa Region. Industry and Innovation, 15, 351-370.
DOLOREUX, D. & SHEARMUR, R. (2012) Collaboration, information and the geography of innovation in knowledge intensive business services. JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY, 12, 79-105.
DREJER, I. (2004) Identifying innovation in surveys of services: a Schumpeterian perspective. Research Policy, 33, 551-562.
FREEL, M. (2006) Patterns of Technological Innovation in Knowledge Intensive Business Services. Industry and Innovation, 13, 335-358.
GALLOUJ, F. Z. & WEINSTEIN, O. (1997) Innovation in services. Research Policy, 26, 537-556. GARFIELD, E. (1979) Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1, 359-
375. GRIMSHAW, D. & MIOZZO, M. (2006) Institutional effects on the IT outsourcing market:
Analysing clients, suppliers and staff transfer in Germany and the UK. Organization Studies, 27, 1229-1259.
GRIMSHAW, D. & MIOZZO, M. (2009) New human resource management practices in knowledge-intensive business services firms: The case of outsourcing with staff transfer. Human Relations, 62, 1521-1550.
39
HAKANEN, T. (2014) Co-creating integrated solutions within business networks: The KAM team as knowledge integrator. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, 1195-1203.
HAUKNES, J. & KNELL, M. (2009) Embodied knowledge and sectoral linkages: An input-output approach to the interaction of high- and low-tech industries. Research Policy, 38, 459-469.
HERTOG, P. D. (2000) KNOWLEDGE-INTENSIVE BUSINESS SERVICES AS CO-PRODUCERS OF INNOVATION. International Journal of Innovation Management, 04, 491-528.
HIPP, C. & GRUPP, H. (2005) Innovation in the service sector: The demand for service-specific innovation measurement concepts and typologies. Research Policy, 34, 517-535.
HOYLER, M., FREYTAG, T. & MAGER, C. (2008) Connecting Rhine-Main: The production of multi-scalar polycentricities through knowledge-intensive business services. Regional Studies, 42, 1095-1111.
KLERKX, L. & LEEUWIS, C. (2008) Balancing multiple interests: Embedding innovation intermediation in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure. Technovation, 28, 364-378.
KOCH, A. & STAHLECKER, T. (2006) Regional innovation systems and the foundation of knowledge intensive business services. A comparative study in Bremen, Munich, and Stuttgart, Germany. European Planning Studies, 14, 123-145.
KOCH, A. & STROTMANN, H. (2006) Impact of functional integration and spatial proximity on the post-entry performance of knowledge intensive business service firms. International Small Business Journal, 24, 610-634.
KOSCHATZKY, K. & STAHLECKER, T. (2010) The emergence of new modes of RD services in Germany. SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL, 30, 685-700.
LARSEN, J. N. (2001) Knowledge, human resources and social practice: The knowledge-intensive business service firm as a distributed knowledge system. SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL, 21, 81-102.
MANNING, S., RICART, J. E., RIQUE, M. S. R. & LEWIN, A. Y. (2010) From blind spots to hotspots: How knowledge services clusters develop and attract foreign investment. Journal of International Management, 16, 369-382.
MAS-VERDÚ, F., WENSLEY, A., ALBA, M. & GARCIA ALVAREZ-COQUE, J. M. (2011) How much does KIBS contribute to the generation and diffusion of innovation? SERVICE BUSINESS, 5, 195-212.
MILES, I. (2005) Knowledge intensive business services: prospects and policies. Foresight, 7, 39-63.
MILES, I. (2008) Patterns of innovation in service industries. Ibm Systems Journal, 47, 115-128.
MILES, I., ANDERSEN, B., BODEN, M. & HOWELLS, J. (2000) Service production and intellectual property. International Journal of Technology Management, 20, 95-115.
MILES, I., KATRINOS, N., FLANAGAN, K., BILDERBEEK, R., DEN HERTOG, P. & HUNTINK, W. (1995) Knowledge-intensive business services - Users, carriers and sources of innovation. EIMS Publication No 15, EIMS, Luxembourg.
MIOZZO, M. & GRIMSHAW, D. (2005) Modularity and innovation in knowledge-intensive business services: IT outsourcing in Germany and the UK. Research Policy, 34, 1419-1439.
MIOZZO, M. & SOETE, L. (2001) Internationalization of services: a technological perspective Technological Forecasting and Social Change 67, 159-185. MULLER, E. & ZENKER, A. (2001) Business services as actors of knowledge transformation: the
role of KIBS in regional and national innovation systems. Research Policy, 30, 1501-1516.
MURRAY, J. Y., KOTABE, M. & WESTJOHN, S. A. (2009) Global Sourcing Strategy and Performance of Knowledge-Intensive Business Services: A Two-Stage Strategic Fit Model. Journal of International Marketing, 17, 90-105.
NAJAFI-TAVANI, Z., GIROUD, A. & ANDERSSON, U. (2014) The interplay of networking activities and internal knowledge actions for subsidiary influence within MNCs. Journal of World Business, 49, 122-131.
NONAKA, I. & TAKEUCHI, H. (Eds.) (1995) The Knowledge-creating company, New York, Oxford University Press.
40
OFARRELL, P. N. & MOFFAT, L. A. R. (1995) BUSINESS SERVICES AND THEIR IMPACT UPON CLIENT PERFORMANCE - AN EXPLORATORY INTERREGIONAL ANALYSIS. Regional Studies, 29, 111-124.
PAVITT, K. (1984) Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13, 343-373.
PLAZA, B., GALVEZ-GALVEZ, C. & GONZALEZ-FLORES, A. (2011) Orchestrating innovation networks in e-tourism: A case study. African Journal of Business Management, 5, 464-480.
RAMOS-RODRÍGUEZ, A.-R. & RUÍZ-NAVARRO, J. (2004) Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: a bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 981-1004.
RAMSEY, E., IBBOTSON, P., BELL, J. & MCCOLE, P. (2005) Internet-based business among knowledge intensive business services: Some Irish regional evidence. SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL, 25, 525-545.
SHEARMUR, R. & DOLOREUX, D. (2009) Place, Space and Distance: Towards a Geography of Knowledge-Intensive Business Services Innovation. Industry and Innovation, 16, 79-102.
SIMMIE, J. & STRAMBACH, S. (2006) The contribution of KIBS to innovation in cities: an evolutionary and institutional perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 26-40.
SKJOLSVIK, T., LOWENDAHL, B. R., KVALSHAUGEN, R. & FOSSTENLOKKEN, S. M. (2007) Choosing to learn and learning to choose: Strategies for client co-production and knowledge development. California Management Review, 49, 110-+.
SMITH, L. (1981) Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30, 83-106. STAHL, M. J., LEAP, T. L. & WEI, Z. Z. (1988) Publication In Leading Management Journals as
a Measure of Institutional Research Productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 707-720.
STRAMBACH, S. (1994) KNOWLEDGE-INTENSIVE BUSINESS SERVICES IN THE RHINE-NECKAR AREA. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 85, 354-365.
TETHER, B. S. & HIPP, C. (2002) Knowledge Intensive, Technical and Other Services: Patterns of Competitiveness and Innovation Compared. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 14, 163-182.
TOIVONEN, M. & TUOMINEN, T. (2009) Emergence of innovations in services. SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL, 29, 887-902.
TOMLINSON, M. (1999) The learning economy and embodied knowledge flows in Great Britain. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 9, 431-451.
TSENG, C. Y., PAI, D. C. & HUNG, C. H. (2011) Knowledge absorptive capacity and innovation performance in KIBS. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15, 971-983.
VAN ECK, N. & WALTMAN, L. (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84, 523-538.
WALLIN, M. W. (2012) The bibliometric structure of spin-off literature. Innovation, 14, 162-177.
WINDRUN, P. & TOMLINSON, M. (1999) Knowledge-intensive services and internal competitiveness: a four country comparison. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management
11, 391-408. WONG, P. K. & HE, Z. L. (2005) A comparative study of innovation behaviour in Singapore's
KIBS and manufacturing firms. SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL, 25, 23-42. WOOD, P. (2005) A service-informed approach to regional innovation - or adaptation? SERVICE
INDUSTRIES JOURNAL, 25, 429-445. YAM, R. C. M., LO, W., TANG, E. P. Y. & LAU, A. K. W. (2011) Analysis of sources of
innovation, technological innovation capabilities, and performance: An empirical study of Hong Kong manufacturing industries. Research Policy, 40, 391-402.
ZHU, W. & GUAN, J. (2013) A bibliometric study of service innovation research: based on complex network analysis. Scientometrics, 94, 1195-1216.
ZITT, M. & BASSECOULARD, E. (1994) Development of a method for detection and trend analysis of research fronts built by lexical or cocitation analysis. Scientometrics, 30, 333-351.
41
42
CHAPTER 3
KIBS´ key dimensions: a qualitative study on innovation, knowledge, networks, location and internationalisation2 ABSTRACT
This paper aims to encourage the discussion as well as to promote a better understanding of
the relationships between the key dimensions in the Portuguese knowledge intensive business
services (KIBS) (namely, innovation, knowledge, networks, location, and internationalization).
The motivation for this research is based on the objective to reach a deeper understanding of
the relationships between KIBS and other firms, especially with their clients, analysing the
effects on innovation and internationalization processes, taking into account knowledge,
networks and location. The current study follows a qualitative methodology approach,
applying semi-structured interviews to chief executive officers (CEOs) of the Portuguese KIBS
firms and specialized academics on KIBS and innovation. The results suggest that KIBS play an
important role in transferring knowledge, thus contributing, in different forms, to the
processes of firms’ innovation and internationalization. The results obtained are important
for firms involved in networks regarding technology as well as the creation of new
products/services or new markets.
Keywords: Innovation, Knowledge, Internationalization, Location, Networks, KIBS.
1. INTRODUCTION
Over the last two decades, knowledge Intensive Business Services (KIBS) received much
attention from academics, policy-makers and others involved with business strategies. Some
authors´research has focused on understanding the potential implications of KIBS on
innovation as well as on the competitiveness of both firms and economies (e.g., Abecassis-
Moedas, Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, Dell’Era, Manceau & Verganti, 2012; Borodako, Berbeka &
2 This paper was submitted and presented at the Regional HELIX Conference 2016 - International Conference on Regional Triple Helix Dynamics.
43
Rudnicki, 2014, Corrocher & Cusmano, 2014). However, none of previous studies, to our
knowledge, have examined the interface between innovation, knowledge, networks, location
and internationalisation in the context of the Knowledge Intensive Business Services sector.
Authors like Marques, Marques, Leal & Cardoso (forthcoming) have tried to better understand
the relationships between, and possible effects of, knowledge, innovation,
internationalization, and performance in the Portuguese footwear industry. Research on KIBS
(Pina & Tether, 2016) has, hitherto, emphasised how they are distinctive from other firms,
and especially product-based manufactures and operational services.
The selection of this industry was based on its prevalence in most developed economies. A
strong characteristic of KIBS firms, given the nature of their business and the importance of
knowledge on the society, is the impact that these fims have on the economic tissue.
The role of KIBS in innovation may be understood, theoretically, in terms of evolutionary and
institutional economics (Simmie & Stramback, 2016). Urban economies are path dependent
interactive learning systems that develop, individually, through time. They are increasingly
characterized by networked production systems in which KIBS play a key role in the transfer
of knowledge between actors. As a result, KIBS make a significant and place-specific
contribution to innovation in cities where they are located.
This study aims to launch the debate and to promote a better understanding of the KIBS’
dimensions to identify effective relationships between innovation, knowledge, networks,
location and internationalisation. This paper follows a qualitative methodology approach,
applying semi-structured interviews to six representative Portuguese KIBS’ CEOs and four
academic (national and international) specialists in KIBS and innovation.
This research contributes: (1) with knowledge to be shared within the academic community,
to the extent that it adds on the research about the KIBS’ influence on the innovation
processes of the different stakeholders involved in business cooperation networks; and (2) to
the management practice, allowing firms to acquire insights that may increase
competitiveness and internationalisation.
This paper is organized as follows. The next section presents the theories that support the
propositions regarding the possible relationships between KIBS and the five dimensions
previously mentioned. In the subsequent section, some methodological features are
discussed, and after the results are presented, the paper concludes with a reflection on the
study’s most important limitations, implications for management practice, and suggestions
for future research.
44
2. LITERATURE REVIEW The literature is unanimous in considering the ability to innovate as a key factor of
competitiveness in the business world (Tidd, Bessant & Pavit, 2005; Marques & Monteiro-
Barata, 2006). Since the beginning of the 80s, the research on innovation in services has
becoming a topic with increasing interest to academics and politicians, in general (de Jong,
Bruins, Dolfsma & Meijaard, 2003; Mention, 2011). It’s increasingly recognized that business
services are not merely innovations’ passive recipients processed in the industry firms, by
contrast, they innovate for themselves (Gallouj & Weinstein, 1997; Tether, 2003).
Within the services industry, the rapid growth of KIBS sector has shown a very important role
in innovation processes (Den Hertog, 2000; Freel, 2006; Mas-Vérdu, Wensley, Alba & Álvarez-
Coque, 2011). KIBS have been playing a dynamic role regarding innovation through the
creation of "knowledge bridge" or "innovation bridges" between business and science (Miles et
al, 1995; Czarnitzki & Spielkamp, 2003). Some studies focus on the role that KIBS play on
innovation systems (Corrocher & Cusmano, 2014; Shi, Wu & Zhao, 2014), while the
cooperation of KIBS with firms in other sectors increases the firm performance and the
regions’ wealth (Miles, 2000; Leiponen, 2005; Ferreira, Marques & Fernandes, 2012). Thus,
KIBS play a role of facilitators of the innovation process in the economy, including other
sectors than services. Besides that, some recent papers have shown the relevance of these
firms into processes of entering new foreign markets (Doloreux & Lapierre, 2014, Di Maria,
Bettiol, De Marchi & Grandinetti, 2012). At the same time, innovation has played an
important role in internationalization and it is, often, the channel for firms to increase
productivity (Altomonte, Aquilante, Békés & Ottaviano, 2013) and performance (Araújo,
2008). Some authors focus, also, on the role of spatial proximity (location) for sustaining the
interaction between KIBS and clients (Aslesen & Isaksen, 2007; Doloreux & Shearmur, 2012).
The importance of KIBS in the modern economies, the relatively incipient research in the
academia and, the fact that KIBS play a fundamental role in innovation and competitiveness
of economies, justify the need to explore the extent to which KIBS contribute for the
acceleration of knowledge both internally and within business networks.
Based on the reviewed literature, the following propositions were defined in Table 1.
45
Table 1. Propositions and theorical foundation
Propositions Theorical foundation P1: Location has a direct impact on networks Koschatzky, 1999; Keeble & Nachum,
2002 P2: Networks enhances knowledge Kogut, 2000; Liu & Uzunidis, 2016 P3: Location has a direct impact on knowledge Keeble & Nachum, 2002 P4: Networks enhances innovation Koschatzky, 1999; Muller & Zenker, 2001 P5: Location has an indirect impact on innovation
through networks Koschatzky, 1999; Koch & Stahlecker, 2006
P6: Knowledge has a direct impact on innovation Bettencourt et al, 2002; Wood, 2002 P7: Location as an indirect impact on innovation
through knowledge Muller & Zenker, 2001; Muller & Doloreux, 2009
P8: Networks enhances internationalization Doloreux & Lapierrre, 2014 P9: Location has an indirect impact on
internationalization through networks Wood, 2002, 2005
P10: Knowledge has a direct impact on internationalization
Brennan & Garvey, 2009; Shearmur, Doloreux & Laperrière, 2015; Marques et al (2015)
P11: Location has as an indirect impact on internationalization through knowledge
Wood, 2002
P12: Innovation enhances internationalization Shearmur et al., 2015; Marques et al (2015)
3. METHODOLOGY 3.1. Sample and data collection The present study was based on a model that assumes positive relationships between the
dimensions of innovation, knowledge, internationalization, networks, and location.
Information was collected using semi-structured personalized interviews with six CEOs of
firms in the Portuguese KIBS sector and four academic experts in KIBS and innovation. The
academic specialists were selected based on their research experience and h-index of the
publications (i.e. indexed in Thomson Reuter’s Web of Knowledge and Elsevier’s Scopus, in
the area of innovation, networks and internationalisation, especially in the KIBS sector). We
opted for two international specialists and two national experts, to compare the data and to
observe the possibility for different results.
The interviews took place in November/December 2015 and the KIBS firms selected for this
qualitative study met some criteria: these firms are involved in processes of co-creation of
innovation and internationalisation; and their CEO have showed availability to participate in
the study when contacted. Some authors (Borodako et al, 2014, Hakanen, 2014) refer to the
concept presented by Miles, et al (1995), who have distinguished KIBS as traditional
professional KIBS (p-KIBS) and new technology-based services (t-KIBS). We were careful to
choose three p-KIBS and three t-KIBS, with different locations: three in urban area (Lisboa,
Porto and Braga) and three in rural area (Felgueiras and Ribeira de Pena), however, even the
firms located in rural area, have also an office in the biggest cities to ensure client proximity.
46
The interview guide was developed taking into account the review of the literature
performed. Based on the literature review and in a previous study using bibliometric analysis
(Braga & Marques, 2016), that allowed identifying the key dimensions to explore, the
interviews guide aims to meet the following goals: 1) to determine the importance that
innovation and knowledge have in each of the selected KIBS; 2) to analyze the influence of
KIBS on the innovation process of their clients; 3) to assess the importance of being a part of
innovation networks; 4) to evaluate the impact of geographic proximity to the clients; and 5)
to explore the influence of knowledge, networks and location on the KIBS internationalization
process.
3.2. Content Analysis
Qualitative content analysis is one of many qualitative methods used to analyze textual data.
Content analysis is described as a family of systematic, rule-guided techniques used to
analyze the informational contents of textual data (Mayring, 2000). It can be referred to as “a
generic form of data analysis in that it is comprised of a theoretical set of techniques that
can be used in any qualitative inquiry in which the informational content of the data is
relevant. Qualitative content analysis contrasts with methods that, rather than focusing on
the informational content of the data, focus on theoretical perspectives (Forman &
Damschroder, 2008). As a research method, it represents a systematic and objective form of
describing and quantifying phenomena (Schreier, 2012). Additionnally, qualitative content
analysis focuses on reducing the content into manageable segments through the application of
inductive and/or deductive codes, and reorganizing data to allow drawing and verifiying
conclusions (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Both inductive and deductive content analysis processes involve three main phases:
preparation, organization, and reporting results. In this research, deductive approach was
used to analyse the respondents’ answers. After a transcription of the context of interviews
and an initial analysis, some inferences were made according to the presence or absence of
key components and/or characteristics of the text. The key excerts from the content of the
interviews were transcribed; the results of this process are summarised and presented in
Tables 1 and 2. The 'category' column contains the five major themes of the interviews: 1)
knowledge; 2) location; 3) networks; 4) innovation and 5) internationalization. The ‘aspect to
be registered’ column shows parts of the text related to the specific characteristics about
respective category and/or sub-category. In the ‘context’ column text fragments matching to
the aspect to be registered were included. WordClouds software replicated word clouds in the
content analysis. This graphic information, added some questions in the last column, is
preceded by the standardization and uniformization of terms contained in the speech of the
respondents.
47
For some authors, qualitative content analysis always requires counting words or categories to
detect patterns in the data, then analyzing those patterns to understand what they mean
(Morgan, 1993; Sandelowski, 2000).
4. RESULTS Within the six CEO’s interviews, innovation shows as essential in the relationship with clients
and in new markets. It seems to be unanimous that innovation allows adding value and the
possibility to enter new markets. Innovation activities are seen as a joint operation between
client and firm and knowledge is shared regular and timely. Moreover, cooperation between
the firms is seen as fruitful and symbiotic, increasing the firm performance. The reference to
internationalization in most dimensions emerges as a result of innovation process (see Table
2).
48
Table 2. Summary of interviews with CEOs
Category Sub-category Aspect to be registered
Aspect Context
Innovation
Technological
What is the role played by technological innovation and non-technological innovation in the firm? Do your firm participate in innovation activities of the clients? In what way?
Innovation is seen as essential to access to new clients and markets. With regards to the distinction between technological and non-technological innovation, one of the respondents attributes the same importance to business, arguing that technology and innovations, in process, marketing, or even in communication are critical because it’s the way to add value and to differentiate against competitors, therefore, can to retain clients. With respect to technological innovation, it is also seen as imperative for success. “In a technology based company, innovation is naturally present”; “we always introduce small innovations at the process level”. With regards to non-technological innovation, the challenge is to adapt the practice of the size of the business, keeping it agile and simultaneously organized. In some cases this type of innovation is considered the most important: Non-technological innovation, "since the firm is essentially people". It's also important to mention that this type of innovation is developed primarily by the company, using in some cases the partners and providers. Almost all respondents answered affirmatively to the participation of their firms in innovation activities by their clients. Innovation activities are seen as a joint goal of client and firm. The
projects are the result of an identified need (client) that is based on a prospective improvement in processes or working models and depend on the condition, predisposition and clients’ expectations in the marketplace. There are answers indicating that such participation is the firm's main strategy to create innovation and identifying opportunities.
Non- technological
49
Knowledge
Social and Institutional Knowledge (accountancy; management; consultancy)
Do you have a knowledge management strategy? Do you share knowledge with clients? And another firms? In what way?
Most respondents agree that there is a knowledge management strategy in their firms, paying particular attention to systematic upgrading of knowledge (through seminars and proactive and persistent search for new solutions to offer clients). Other respondent answered negatively to this question and it has not been outlined any strategy for dealing with knowledge, and knowledge is 'managed' spontaneously and informally. According to the answers of CEOs, knowledge is shared with clients’ regular and timely manner. ("There are employees assigned to look for what was published in the “Diário da República”, advances that came out in Portugal 2020, that is all useful information that will circulate”). This knowledge is shared with clients as part of presentations and notifications of new concepts involving the simplification of processes and new working methods, which clients can benefit. Fims also share knowledge with other entities/firms when engaged in joint projects. But some CEOs responded there are few entities with whom they share knowledge, and it has happened only in special cases, as the case of suppliers, which often end up becoming clients too. In this process of knowledge sharing all involved stand to gain in terms of learning. (“Learn always. This is an invaluable source of information. With this involvement, there is always some transfer of knowledge and technology…”).
Technical Knowledge (computer R&D; engineering services)
50
Networks
Cooperation
What kind of innovation networks the firm has established? Do your firm cooperate with higher education institutions?
Innovation networks are essentially established under the form of partnerships with research institutions and suppliers’ entities and, in some cases, wish to strengthen these links more broadly through a networking at national level. This networking philosophy and cooperation for innovation gets to be valued in such a way that sometimes competitors also assume the role of partners. However, in other interviews, it was declined that firms have been established innovation networks.
Respondents’ state that their firms cooperate mainly with regional/national firms of the same group and with universities, although, there is an awareness of the growing need for international cooperation networks ("It must have networks, both national, as well as international”). Such cooperation with international organizations may allow finding more comprehensive market solutions and also contributes to policies (strategic options that agencies and international institutions have to take). Cooperation with universities is viewed with particular importance to one of the interviewees, giving emphasis to the importance of sharing knowledge and building partnerships adapted to client demand. CEO’s also expressed that established cooperation with clients and other firms in particular, with a view to building products and integrated solutions to meet the expectations of clients and the strategic options of firm. Cooperation between the firms is seen as fruitful and symbiotic, increasing the performance of both parties.
Universities
Location
Urban
The proximity of other firms, in particular client, is that important? Why?
The location of the firm is considered a crucial factor for CEO’s. All the firms involved are located in an urban environment, with CEO’s justifying this location for easing access to resources and qualified services, universities and other partners ("We need to have good services around the firm and an interesting environment for resources").
Rural
51
Physical proximity to clients is also considered as very important to the extent that it allows testing and validating solutions inloco. They also mentioned that the urban location is not only important to ensure proximity to clients and other firms, but also because it facilitates access to international networks and events relevant to the business.
Internationalisation
European Union
What is the reason to start the firm’s internationalisation process? Do your firm supports/ facilitates the internationalisation process of other firms? How?
The diversification of the clients base, networking and accumulation of new knowledge were the main reasons given for CEO’s to begin the process of internationalization, although, in some cases, it is an indirect presence in international markets, through the implementation of the products introduced by partners in international markets, or through joint projects with firms who have international presence.
Internationalization is also seen as a need to minimize the risks of relying only on the domestic market, although it is not considered an easy process to carry out ("Internationalization has difficulties, has specificities ..."). CEO’s state support to other entities and clients in the internationalization process ("Yes, by integrating the supply of specialized partners in areas where we are not present"). That support is done mainly by applications to Eurpean support and by providing knowledge and contacts to promote internationalization. It is also to provide firms with a set of tools that can help managing the risks of internationalization. There is concern in promoting the success of clients and partners and obtain the benefit of that.
Rest of the
world
52
Table 3 displays the summary of the comments of academic specialists on each of the categories. Table 3. Summary of the interviews with academic specialists
Category Sub-category Aspect to be registered Aspect Context
Innovation
Technological Importance of the role of technological dimension in innovation
The technological knowledge is seen as a key component of innovation and entrepreneurial activities, but it also depends on the type of innovation that is sought ("there seems to be no special role because it depends on the type of innovation - if its technological innovation it must be closely connected with the technology “). One of the experts interviewed also attached great importance to the non-technological
dimension of innovation: "There are some other non-technological dimensions for innovation. Professional services could innovate and not necessary in technology way".
Non- technological
Importance of the role of non-technological dimension in innovation
Knowledge
Social and Intitutional Knowledge
(e.g. accountancy; management consultancy)
The role of social and institutional knowledge dimension in innovation; And the relationship between social and institutional knowledge and innovation.
Some experts argue that the social and institutional knowledge needs to be integrated with situational awareness and knowledge management. Moreover, one of the experts argue that this knowledge can, sometimes, be enhanced to some areas (“… seems to me quite restrictive especially regarding management consultancy which is concerned with a broad range of knowledge which is not only social and institutional”). Only one of the experts addressed the topic of innovation in concrete: «This aspect is strictly connected with the innovation transfer that is allowed by the different types of the KIBS firms. The relations are usually based on the experience collected by the partners and fulfil it nature in the area of social and institutional knowledge». The remaining settled in just highlight their role in institutional change, specifically in creating dynamics (learning), access, distribution and use of knowledge.
53
Category Sub-category Aspect to be registered Aspect Context
Technical Knowledge
(e.g. computer R&D;
engineering services)
The role of technical knowledge dimension in innovation; The relationship between technical knowledge and innovation.
When asked about the role of technological knowledge dimension on innovation and on the relationship between technological knowledge and innovation, experts emphasised how the technological knowledge can help building more efficient institutions for sustainable development and innovation. This kind of knowledge was particularly important for firms in more technical areas related to R&D and research centers. This dimension of knowledge is also seen as highly specific and difficult to acquire in a short time, since it is based on a consolidated combination of theory and practice.
Networks
Universities
Importance of the role of the universities in networks
Specialists praised the importance of transferring knowledge and technology between universities and firms, to the extent that the research work and market knowledge are the starting point for performing a work in a profitable network. One interviewee evokes the literature to justify his point of view: "The literature identifies various ways of processing the knowledge transfer: the proximity and geographic concentration of companies, research centres and related industries - spillovers theory».
Cooperation
Importance of the firms cooperation in networks
This dimension is considered essential to enhance and facilitate communication in the context of entrepreneurship, in that it creates opportunities for knowledge transfer and knowledge. There are also found indications that point to the heterogeneity of firms at the cultural level and of entrepreneurship, which translates into different levels of cooperation and involvement in network.
54
Category Sub-category Aspect to be registered Aspect Context
Location
Urban
Importance of the role of urban dimension in location
The great advantage of urban location is based on the quality of national and international links with other relevant institutions. This takes into account the geographical distribution and concentration for the performance and innovation. However, some specialists focused on enhancing the urban characteristic of some firms given their frequent location in urban and metropolitan areas. ("KIBS are usually located in clusters and mostly on urban area. Urban dimension is a key aspect of understanding activity of KIBS firms and allow to connect these firms ").
Rural
Importance of the role of rural dimension in location
In what concerns of the role of the rural dimension in location, only two respondents had expressed their opinions: "Diverse political entities need to take on a greater awareness and understanding of how entrepreneurial activities emerge out of specific rural contexts. Entrepreneurial support policies and attempts to accurately target such resources need to take into consideration, and rural areas need support policies in order to promote KIBS located in these areas"; "In contrast to urban factor we can say that rural location can be important only in case of key attribute of such services. This location can play smaller importance in case of location-independent services - mostly IT. Of course many (if not all) services can be offered today and delivered online, but rural location can be specific place for work (to locate the KIBS firm)."
Internationali-sation
European Union Importance of European markets to the firms
International markets are viewed with great importance by the experts, particularly in identifying opportunities. There are markets in Europe and in the rest of the world at different stages of evolution, with different levels of sophistication, and these circumstances may be capitalized in business opportunities and entrepreneurship. One of the experts interviewed identifies different internationalization profiles, and some companies operate more globally, and others follow their customers in the internationalization process.
Rest of the world
Importance of rest of the world markets to the firms
55
The analysis of the interviews (CEO and academic specialists), highlight the following points: (1)
The defined categories, and the relations between them, were confirmed as very important in
the literature and practice management firms in the KIBS sector; (2) The sub-categories defined
were considered important, except rural locations. The location of the firm is considered a
critical factor for CEO’s, although, CEO’s and academic experts referred the importance of the
proximity to urban centers. According to academic specialists, location in rural areas has a
smaller importance in case of location-independent services - mostly IT. One may also highlight
that (i) Both technological and non-technological innovations are essential to get into new
markets, although, while academic researchers see technological knowledge as a key component
of innovation, Portuguese KIBS recognize larger importance to non-tecnhological innovation
based on the argument that “the firm is essentially people” and could innovate not necessary in
technology way; (ii) Social and institutional knowledge, and technical knowledge, are important
dimensions of innovation, however academic researchers consider very restrictive and, in their
perspective, it needs to be integrated with situational awareness and knowledge management;
(iii) cooperation with firms and universities are considered strictly important to create
opportunities for both knowledge and technology transfer and innovation. Cooperation between
firms is seen as fruitful and symbiotic, increasing the performance of both parties. Nonetheless,
CEO’s refer to the awareness of the engaging in international cooperation networks; (iv) urban
location is not only important to ensure proximity to clients and other firms, but also to
facilitate access to international networks; (v) Internationalization emerges as a permanent
component in the innovation strategies for KIBS if the clients are willing to establish themselves
in the global market and it happens, mainly due to the diversification of client portfolio,
networking and accumulation of new knowledge.
5. CONCEPTUAL RESEARCH MODEL PROPOSED Based on the literature review and the findings of the qualitative analysis, we propose the
research conceptual model below (see Figure 1), to be tested in a subsequent study, based on
quantitative data to be collected from Portuguese KIBS firms.
56
Figure 1. Research conceptual model proposed Based on the interviewees (CEOs and academic researchers), the qualitative methodological
approach allows obtaining results, which will be analyzed in future research that will adopted a
quantitative methodology approach. Considering that the results of this research are dependent
on a specific context and participants, any generalization or extrapolation to other
organizational contexts is not possible. Obviously, this is a methodological limitation that can be
overcome broadening of the quantitative database in order to test the proposed conceptual
model as well as research hypotheses.
6. FINAL CONSIDERATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The main purpose of this research is to encourage discussion and to promote a better
understanding of the KIBS’ dimensions to identify effective relationships between innovation,
knowledge, networks, location and internationalisation of Portuguese firms in this sector.
The results of this qualitative research support our objective, encouraging the discussion about
the importance of KIBS and their role on innovation and internationalization, taking into account
the CEOs’ perspectives of (practice) and academics (theoretical). The results obtained allow
supporting the relationships between the selected key dimension (innovation, knowledge,
network, location and internationalisation) —proposed on the literature review.
P12
P8
P6, P7
P4, P5
P2
P1
P3
P10, P9, P11
Networks(Universities
and Cooperation)
Location (Urban vs
Rural)
Internationalisation
Knowledge
Innovation (Technological
and Non-technological)
57
Therefore, the results of this study indicate that high levels of cooperation with another firms
and universities, urban location and social, institutional and technical knowledge of KIBS, favor
both firms’ innovation and entry into new foreign markets – internationalisation. These results
are according with anothers like Fernandes and Ferreira (2013); Pinto, Fernandez-Esquinas and
Uyarra (2013) and Abecassis-Moedas (2012). Furthermore, our research suggests that high levels
of innovation promote internationalisation such the study of Rodriguez and Nieto (2012).
These findings inspired a theoretical research model, by identifying the key dimensions, sub-
dimensions and possible relationships between them, to be tested subsequently, through a
quantitative methodological approach. Therefore, the future research will validate the
measurement instrument, to be collected from Portuguese KIBS (P-KIBS and T-KIBS). This will be
done using a structural equation model (SEM) and multigroups model will be used to test the P-
KIBS and T-KIBS, as well as urban location versus rural location.
A limitation of this study is related to the strong dependence on the context of analysis and of
the data collection. Therefore, the results need be understood in light of the data, as well as the
subjective and qualitative aspects, regarding the structure adopted for the conducted
interviews.
In terms of future research, it may be suggested: 1) qualitative studies, expanding the database
in order to test the sub-categories and variables presented in this study and the conceptual
model of research proposed; 2) studies across the same sector, in different countries to
generalise the results, and to identify the main differences or similarities; 3) studies with
different stakeholders, namely clients, suppliers or universities to test the results’ robustness; 4)
quantitative studies using e.g. structural equation modelling; 5) combination and comparison of
different methodological approaches and/or contexts.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research is supported by the FEDER component of the European Structural and Investment Funds, through the Operational Competitiveness and Internationalisation Programme’s (COMPETE 2020) Project No. 006971 (UID/SOC/04011) and the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology’s (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia) UID/SOC/04011/2013 Project.
58
REFERENCES Abecassis-Moedas, C., Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, S., Dell’Era, C., Manceau, D. & Verganti, R. (2012). Key
Resources and Internationalization Modes of Creative Knowledge-Intensive Business Services: The Case of Design Consultancies. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21, 315-331.
Altomonte, C., Aquilante, T., Békés, G. & Ottaviano, G.I.P. (2013). Internationalization and innovation of firms: evidence and policy. Economic Policy, 28(76), 663-700.
Aslesen, H.W. & Isaksen, A. (2007). Knowledge intensive business services and urban industrial development. Service Industries Journal, 27, 321-338.
Araújo, J.F. (2008). The impact of internationalization on firm's performance - a qualitative study of Portuguese SMEs. Dissertação de Mestrado, Lisboa: Instituto Superior de Ciências do Trabalho e da Empresa.
Bettencourt L.A., Ostrom A.L., Brown S.W. & Roundtree R.I. (2002). Client co-production in knowledge-intensive business services. California Management Review, 44, 100-28.
Borodako, K., Berbeka, J. & Rudnicki, M. (2014). The potential of local KIBS companies as a determinant of tourism development in Krakow. Tourism Economics, 20, 1337-1348.
Braga, A.M. & Marques, C.S. (2016), Knowledge Intensive Business Services Research: a bibliometric study of leading international journal (1994-2014). In J. Ferreira, M. Raposo, C. Fernandes & M. Dejardin (Eds.), Knowledge Intensive Business Services and Regional Competitiveness (pp. 11-47). New York, Routledge.
Brennan, L. & Garvey, D. (2009). The role of knowledge in internationalization. Research in International Business and Finance, 23(2), 120-133.
Czamitzki, D. & Spielkamp, A. (2003). Business Services in Germany: Bridges for Innovation. Service Industries Journal, 23(2), 1-30.
Corrocher, N. & Cusmano, L. (2014). The 'KIBS Engine' of Regional Innovation Systems: Empirical Evidence from European Regions. Regional Studies, 48(7), 1212-1226.
De Jong, J., Bruins, A., Dolfsma, W. & Meijaard, J. (2003). Innovation in service firms explored: what, how and why? EIM, Business and Policy Research.
Den Hertog, P. (2000). Knowledge-intensive Business Services as co-producers of Innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 4(4), 491-528.
Di Maria, E., Bettiol, M., De Marchi, V. & Grandinetti, R. (2012). Developing and Managing Distant Markets: The Case of KIBS. Economia Politica, 29, 361-379.
Doloreux, D. & Laperriere, A. (2014). Internationalisation and innovation in the knowledge-intensive business services. Service Business, 8, 635-657.
Doloreux, D. & Shearmur, R. (2012). Collaboration, information and the geography of innovation in knowledge intensive business services. Journal of Economic Geography, 12, 79-105.
Fernandes, C. e Ferreira, J. (2013). Knowledge spillovers: cooperation between universities and KIBS. R&D Management, 43 (5), 461-472.
Ferreira, J., Marques, C.S. & Fernandes, C. (2012). Contribution of location theories for Regional Development: an empirical study applied to technology-based firms. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 4(5), 414 - 429.
Freel, M. (2006). Patterns of Technological Innovation in Knowledge-Intenive Business Services. Industry and Innovation, 13(3), 335-358.
Forman, J. & Damschroder, L. (2008). Qualitative Content Analysis. Empirical Methods for Bioethics: A Primer Advances in Bioethics, 11, 39–62: Elsevier Ltd.
Gallouj, F. & Weinstein, O. (1997). Innovation in services. Research Policy, 26, 537-556. Hakanen, T. (2014). Co-creating integrated solutions within business networks: The KAM team as
knowledge integrator. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, 1195-1203. Keeble D, Nachum L. (2002). Why do business service firms cluster? Small consultancies, clustering
and decentralization in London and southern England. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 27(1), 67–90.
Koch, A. & Stahlecker, T. (2006). Regional innovation system and the foundation of knowledge intensive business services. A comparative study in Bremen, Munich, and Stuttgart, Germany. European planning studies, 14, 123-45.
Kogut, B. (2000). The network as knowledge: generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 405-425.
Koschatzky K. (1999). Innovation networks of industry and business-related services – relations between innovation intensity of firms and regional inter-firm cooperation. European Planning Studies, 7(6),737–58.
Leiponen, A. (2005). Organization of Knowledge and Innovation: The Case of Finnish Business Services. Industry and Innovation, 12(2), 185-203.
59
Liu, Z. & Uzunidis, D. (2016). Globalization of R&D. Accumulation of Knowledge and Network Innovation: the Evolution of the Firm’s Boundaries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-17.
Marques, C.S.; Marques, C.P.; Leal, C.T. & Cardoso, A.R. (forthcoming). Knowledge, innovation, internationalisation and performance: insights from the Portuguese footwear industry. Int. J. of Entrepreneurship and Small Business.
Marques, C. S., Leal, C., Marques, C. P. and Cardoso, A. R. (2015) ‘Strategic knowledge management, innovation and performance: A qualitative study of the footwear industry’, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1–17. Doi: 10.1007/s13132-015-0249-4.
Marques, C.S. & Monteiro-Barata, J. (2006). Determinants of the Innovation Process: An Empirical Test for the Portuguese Manufacturing Industry. Management Research, 4(2), 111-124.
Mas-Vérdu F., Wensley, A., Alba, M. & Álvarez-Coque J. (2011). How much does KIBS contribute to the generation and diffusion of innovation? Service Business, 5(3), 195-212.
Mayring, P. (2000), Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research,1(2), Art. 20. Avaiable at http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0002204.
Mention, A.L. (2011). Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the service sector: Which influence on innovation novelty? Technovation, 31(1), 44–53.
Miles, I. (2000). Services innovation: coming of age in the knowledge based economy. International Journal of Innovation Management, 4(4), 371-389.
Miles, I., Kastrinon, N., Flanagan, K., Bilderbeek, R., den Hertog, P., Huntink, W. & Bouman, M. (1995). Knowledge intensive Business services. Users and sources of Innovation. Brussels: European Comission.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgan, D. (1993). Qualitative Content Analysis: A Guide to Paths Not Taken. Qualitative Health Research 3(1):112-21
Muller, E. & Doloreux, D. (2009). What we should know about knowledge-intensive business services. Technology in Society, 31(1), 64-72.
Muller, E. & Zenker, A. (2001). Business services as actors of knowledge transformation: the role of KIBS in regional and national innovation systems. Research Policy, 30(9), 1501-16.
Pina, K. & Tether B.S. (2016), Towards understanding variety in knowledge intensive business services by distinguishing their knowledge bases. Research policy, 45, 101-413.
Pinto, H., Fernandez-Esquinas, M. & Uyarra, E. (2013). Universities and Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS) as Sources of Knowledge for Innovative Firms in Peripheral Regions, Regional Studies, DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2013.857396.
Rodríguez, A. & Nieto M. J. (2012) The internationalization of knowledge-intensive business services: the effect of collaboration and the mediating role of innovation. The Service Industries Journal, 32 (7), 1057-1075, DOI: 10.1080/02642069.2012.662493.
Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description. Research in Nursing & Health, 23 (4), 334-340.
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Simmie, J. & Stramback, S. (2016). The Contribution of KIBS to Innovation in Cities: An Evolutionary
and Institutional Perspective. Journal of knowledge management, 10(5), 26-40. Shearmur, R.; Doloreux, D. & Laperrière, A. (2015). Is the degree of internationalization associated
with the use of knowledge intensive services or with innovation? International Business Review, 24(3), 457-465.
Shi, X., Wu, Y. & Zhao, D. (2014). Knowledge intensive business services and their impact on innovation in China. Service Business, 8(4), 479-498.
Tether, B. (2003). The Sources and Aims of Innovation in services: variety between and within sectors. Economics of innovation and new technology, 12(6), 481-505.
Tidd, J.; Bessant, J. & Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. England: John Wiley & Sons.
Wood, P. (2005). Service-informed approach to regional innovation – or adaptation? Service Industries journal, 25(4),429-45.
Wood, P. (2002). Knowledge-intensive services and urban innovativeness. Urban Studies, 39(5/6), 993-1
60
61
CHAPTER 4
Exploring the relationships between KIBS and innovation: a quantitative analyse in Portuguese firms3
ABSTRACT This paper is based on the results of a study in which a qualitative methodology was selected
with the aim to explore the effects of knowledge, cooperation and internationalisation on co-
creation of innovation, applying questionnaires to CEO’s of KIBS’ firms in Portugal. The study
used a quantitative approach, based on a sample extracted from the Survey database to the
Scientific and Technological Potential, with KIBS activity in 2014/2015. Upon completion of data
collection, systematization of data was done through factor analysis and multiple linear
regression that allowed to draw conclusions about the objectives proposed.
Our results show that knowledge codifications and proactive strategies of internationalisation
have a positive influence in the co-creation of non-technological innovation with clients, and
when KIBS cooperate with HEIs there is a positive impact in co-creation of technological
innovation. This research contributes: (1) with knowledge to be shared within the academic
community, to the extent that it adds on the research on the KIBS influence on the innovation
processes of the different stakeholders involved in business cooperation networks and
internationalisation; (2) to the management practice, allowing firms to gain insights that may
increase their productivity levels; and (3) with relevant national public policy proposals for
adjusting and improving this sector.
Keywords: innovation, knowledge, cooperation, internationalisation, co-creation, clients, HEIs; KIBS; 1. Introduction
Knowledge Intensive Business Services (KIBS) refers to services involving economic activities
which are expected to result in the creation, accumulation or dissemination of knowledge. In
3 This paper was submitted and presented at Theory and Applications in the Knowledge Economy – TAKE 2016 - The International Scientific Conference devoted to the Multidisciplinary Study of the Knowledge Economy.
62
addition, KIBS are key players in innovation systems, particularly in advanced regions where
manufacturing competitiveness largely depends on knowledge contents provided by highly
specialized suppliers. Over the last 20 years, some authors (e.g., Abecassis-Moedas et al, 2012;
Muller & Doloreux, 2009; Simmie & Strambach, 2006) focused their research on understanding
the potential implications of KIBS on innovation processes and on the competitiveness of both
firms and economies. Pina and Tether (2016) argument that KIBS are increasingly recognized as
being amongst the most dynamic sectors of advanced economies, not only achieving high rates of
innovation but also helping their clients to innovate. According to several authors (e.g., den
Hertog, 2000; Santos & Spring, 2015), when focusing on the role of KIBS services in client
innovation, KIBS are seen to function as facilitator, carrier or source of innovation, and through
their, almost symbiotic, relationship with client firms - some KIBS function as co-producers of
innovation, not only through the cooperation with their clients but also with higher education
institutions (HEI) and other organizations. Often KIBS act as transmitters of knowledge,
contributing in different ways to the innovation processes of related firms (Bilderbeek et al.,
1998; Haukness, 1998; Miles et al., 1995).
Besides that, some recent papers, have shown the relevance of these firms into processes of
entering new foreign markets (Doloreux & Lapierre, 2014, Di Maria, Bettiol, De Marchi &
Grandinetti, 2012). At the same time, innovation has played an important role in
internationalisation and it is, often, the channel for firms to increase productivity (Altomonte,
Aquilante, Békés & Ottaviano, 2013). While a growing amount of research emphasizes
internationalisation, little academic research focuses on its consequences on innovation
strategies and activities (Doloreux & Lapierre, 2014; Marques, Leal, Marques & Cardoso, 2015;
Marques, Marques, Leal & Cardoso, forthcoming). The contribution of the present study lies in a
better understanding of the association between distinct strategies of internationalisation,
management knowledge, cooperation and co-creation of innovation.
In the present research, we aim to explore the effects of knowledge, cooperation and
internationalisation on co-creation of innovation, applying questionnaires to CEO’s of KIBS’ firms
in Portugal which were operating in 2014 and 2015. In addition, we wanted to contribute to
management practice by offering firms a more complete knowledge of ways to increase
competitiveness, particularly in relation to both KIBS and business clients from any activity
sector, and provide some suggestions and improvements for national adjustment policies.
This paper is structured as follows. The next section examines theories supporting hypotheses
that involve the possible relationships between co-creation of innovation, knowledge,
cooperation and internationalisation. After discussing some methodological considerations, the
results are presented, and the chapter concludes with a reflection on the study’s most important
limitations and implications for management practice, as well as suggestions for future avenues
of research.
63
2. Conceptual framework 2.1 Co-creation of innovation
KIBS are part of a category of service activities that are often highly innovative in its own right,
as well as facilitating innovation in other organisations. Den Hertog (2000) suggests that KIBS
function as facilitators, carriers or sources of innovation, and, through their almost symbiotic
relationship with client firms, some KIBS function as co-producers of innovation (den Hertog,
2000; Mas-Vérdu, 2011; Muller & Doloreux, 2009).
According to Flikkema et al. (2007), innovations can be classified as technological when they
apply to products/services or processes or as non-technological innovations when referring to
organisational and marketing aspects. Johnson et al. (2003) point out that, traditionally,
innovation studies have focused much more on technological rather than non-technological
innovation, and service and organisational innovation have been relatively neglected.
Technological innovation, as part of innovation activities, was one of the first approaches used in
innovation activities. Schumpeter (1934) distinguishes between five types of innovation. Two
varieties exist in technological innovations (i.e. the introduction of new products and of new
processes), while the remaining are connected to non-technological innovation (i.e. opening new
markets, developing new sources of raw materials and creating new organisational structures).
The production of services is often, according to den Hertog (2000), the result of a joint effort of
the service provider and client. In this co-production process, the quality of the resulting service
product largely depends on the quality of interactions and communication between the service
provider and client. This author suggests that analyses of the role of KIBS in innovation processes
bring to the focus the ways in which knowledge is produced and used in the economy, as well as
the role of KIBS in these processes. The cited author further argues that, in addition to discrete
and tangible forms of knowledge exchange, process-oriented and intangible forms of knowledge
flows are crucial in these relationships.
2.2 Knowledge
According to the literature, KIBS play a role in facilitating innovation by interfacing between the
generic knowledge available in the economy and the tacit knowledge located within firms
(Kubota, 2009).
Hansen et al. (1999) differentiate between two types of knowledge management: personalisation
and codification. According to the cited authors, personalisation focuses on dialogues between
individuals, while codification extracts knowledge from the individuals who develop and
reutilises such knowledge to achieve various purposes. Thus, for some authors (López-Nicolás &
64
Meroño-Cerdán, 2011; Wu & Lin, 2009), organisations have to find a good balance between
system strategies for codification and those strategies that concentrate more directly on human
factors through personalisation. In this context, researchers suggest that personalisation, which
focuses on tacit knowledge, is more valuable when firms seek to reinforce competitiveness than
codification is, especially when the latter concentrates on explicit knowledge (Storey & Kahn,
2010).
According to Capasso et al. (2005), the past decade has seen an increase in the literature
focusing on generating processes that share, identify and transfer knowledge within and between
firms. Lanza (2005) reinforces Dyer and Nobeoka’s (2000) finding that the development of new
knowledge – along with the concurrent partners – has increasingly been undertaken in order to
obtain a competitive advantage through improved product quality and innovation, despite the
great difficulty and risk that these tasks entail. Lanza (2005) adds that this knowledge
development process consists of two related phases: sharing and creating. Thus, competing
businesses’ knowledge sharing with partners is a key step in effective knowledge creation
activities that allow firms to compete successfully in the market. KIBS act as transmitters of
knowledge, contributing in different ways to the innovation processes of related firms
(Bilderbeek et al., 1998; Haukness, 1998; Miles et al., 1995). Several researchers go further and
underline the role of KIBS as co-producers of innovation by creating or sharing knowledge
(Bettencourt et al., 2002; den Hertog, 2000; Wong & He, 2005). Therefore, the following
hypothesis was developed for the present study:
H1: Knowledge has a positive influence in co-creation of innovation.
2.3 Cooperation
According to Lanza (2005), when firms cooperate, they can share and/or create knowledge. This
results in a favourable output for the firms involved, either in the form of technology or new
products/services, in other words, some form of innovation.
According to Hipp et al. (2012), service activities are characterised by pronounced cooperation
with external agents in the development of innovative activities. KIBS are more likely to
introduce organisational innovations within their production systems, and these services tend to
require collaboration with external agents in innovation processes to a greater extent than most
sectors do. This is particularly true when considering cooperation with clients, customers,
competitors or higher education institutions (HEIs).
Networks can assume a large variety of forms. These differences can be seen from contrasting
perspectives and can be related to different issues. The first distinction centres on the
65
relationships of firms to other organisations in their value chain, resulting in vertical or
horizontal networks (Nalebuff & Brandenburger, 1996). In other ways, firms’ involvement with
each other may also be different in terms of the formality of ties. Within this dimension,
relationships can be informal agreements or co-operative arrangements. Regarding the types of
relationships between actors, Conway (2000) proposes two different forms of networks: (1)
informal or social networks are those based on social relations created within businesses; and,
(2) formal networks are those that happen between firms as formal organisations. Blundel and
Smith (2001) also studied business networking and found four different approaches: (1) industrial
districts and spatial clusters; (2) supply chain networks; (3) entrepreneurial networks; and (3)
innovation networks.
Space has a particular role to play in co-operative relationships. Networks can be developed
between firms that are geographically concentrated or distant from each other. When firms and
HEI share the same geographical location, face-to-face interaction is easier, so more trust is to
be expected. It is also more likely that business relationships, because of more frequent face-to-
face interaction, become personal relationships and those weak ties become strong ties.
Cooperation ventures can vary in regard to their goals. Nevertheless, this does not mean that
networks have to embody just one aim, as they can involve multi-purpose cooperation. In some
cases, cooperation is regarded as just a locus for innovation. In this sense, firms and HEI join
together in order to innovate. However, firms may be willing to cooperate in diverse aspects of
business and embody these purposes in long-term relationships.
As a result of these findings, the following hypothesis was defined for the present study:
H2: Cooperation has a positive influence in co-creation of innovation.
2.4 Internationalisation
The internationalisation of KIBS raises challenges given their specificities such as knowledge
intensity, the importance of customer interaction and intimacy in service delivery (Abecassis-
Moedas et al., 2013).
Firms at early stages of internationalisation may find difficulties to absorb knowledge from
foreign markets sources, as their primary sources of knowledge are internal staff and clients.
Product and process innovations are the dominant types of innovation developed by these firms,
most likely due to the fact that they must adapt themselves to new markets. Comparatively,
firms with greater internationalisation experience identified in the study of Doloreux and
Lapierre (2014) as those with a greater percentage of foreign sales were more likely to develop
66
new strategies to better exploit and diffuse their service supply in different international
markets. This is reflected by the fact that these firms introduced more frequently strategic and
managerial innovations on the market than firms with lower international activity.
These findings provide support to the arguments that suggest firms which develop international
activities tend to engage more in different innovation-related activities (Harris and Li 2008;
Moreira et al. 2013; Ripolles Melia` et al. 2010). As a result of these findings, the following
hypothesis was defined for the present study:
H3: Strategies of internationalisation have a positive influence in co-creation of innovation.
Based on the literature review, a conceptual model of research was proposed, as shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: conceptual model of research
Knowledge
Cooperation
Co-creation of
innovation
Personalisation
Codification
Creation
Sharing
Clients
HEI
Firms/ Institutions
Technological
Non-Technological
H1
H2
Internacionalisation
Proactive strategy Reactive and
cost strategy
H3
67
3. Methodology
In this paper we used quantitative methodology, applying questionnaires to CEO’s of KIBS’ firms
in Portugal, in a sample of firms that were in operation in 2014 and 2015.
With this research we aim to explore the effects of knowledge, cooperation and
internationalisation on co-creation of innovation. These constructs were validated using
confirmatory factor analysis, studying the reliability of a questionnaire, previously validated
through interviews with CEOs and academic experts to describe the structural relationships
between the variables.
This study corresponds to the third phase of a research, based on the results of phase 2 - a study
in which a qualitative methodology was selected, applying semi-structured interviews to six
Portuguese KIBS’ CEOs and four academics (national and international) specialists in KIBS and
innovation, in order to validate the questionnaire that resulted from the literature review on the
dimensions and its operation, and with the aim of evaluating the relationship between KIBS and
their clients, and the consequences for their innovation processes (technological and non-
technological).
3.1 Data-source and procedures
In order to test the proposed research model and research hypotheses, data were collected via a
structured questionnaire distributed online to 397 firms that were listed as in operation and
contactable in the database of the Inquérito ao Potencial Científico e Tecnológico Nacional
(Survey of National Scientific and Technological Potential). This survey is conducted every year
throughout Portugal. The surveyed firms were selected from the last reported year (2012) based
on their claim to have carried out research and development (R&D) activities and integrated four
sectors: businesses, government institutions, HEIs and private non-profit organisations. The data
collection took place from May to December 2015. Valid questionnaires were obtained from 58
firms (approximately a 15% of response rate).
3.2 Measures and sample
In order to operationalise the variables, we conducted a further literature review and adapted
scales validated in previous studies. The questionnaire included questions selected from fourth
instruments: Community Innovation Survey - CIS2012, Fernandes (2011), Hashi and Stojčić (2013)
and López-Nicolás and Meroño-Cerdán (2011).
68
The dataset used in this study consists of 58 KIBS firms (table 1) and 64 variables concerning co-
creation of innovation, cooperation, knowledge and internationalisation. Data were collected
from Portuguese KIBS chief executive officers (CEOs) between June and December 2015.
Table 1: Research characteristics
Industry/Sector Services - KIBS
Population KIBS with R&D activities
Sample 397 firms
respondents 58 CEO’s of KIBS firms
Type of Firms 35 t-KIBS 24 p- KIBS
Dimension (N.º of employees
in the firm_2014)
Média: 84.4 Mediana: 8 Desvio padrão: 493,7 Máximo: 3600 Mínimo:1
Location Lisboa: 17% Porto: 11,8% Aveiro: 6,8% Braga: 3,4% Catelo Branco: 3.4% Other (1 firm/local): 57,6%
Questions Closed answer
Data collection method Questionnaire sent by email
Statiscal methods Factor analysis and multiple linear regressions
The 64 variables were grouped into six sections of items in the questionnaire, for which some
descriptive statistics are provided in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 below. All the items were measured on
a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
Answers concerning questions about co-creation of innovation, made up of nine five-point items,
display means between 2.07 (non-technological innovation) and 2.88 (technological innovation),
with a standard deviation of around one. Answers for questions about knowledge, covered by 15
items, display means between 2.96 (knowledge sharing processes) and 4.26 (personalisation),
with a standard deviation of around two. Answers concerning the 29 items about cooperation
(i.e. HEIs, clients and other firms/institutions) show means between 2.13 (cooperation with HEIs)
and 4.04 (cooperation with clients), with a standard deviation of around one. Answers
concerning the 11 items about strategies of internationalisation (i.e. proactive strategies and
reactive and cost strategies) result in means between 1.80 (proximity to sources of raw
materials) and 3.68 (firm’s growth needs), with a standard deviation of around 1.2.
In this study, we did a factor analysis of several management concepts: co-creation of
innovation, cooperation, knowledge and internationalisation, as well as linear regression. The
69
objective of the factorial analysis was to reduce the initial number of variables while keeping
their common characteristics. Linear regression was performed in order to estimate the
contribution of different factors to co-creation of technological and non-technological
innovation. All the statistical analyses presented were performed using IBM SPSS 22.0.
4 Results
In this section, we describe the results of the aforementioned factor analysis and linear
regression to allow the presentation and discussion of the findings. Using the principal
components analysis (PCA) method, the variables concerned with innovation clients were
reduced from nine variables to only two components (see Table 2).
We started by checking if PCA was an adequate method by using Bartlett’s sphericity test,
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistics and anti-image. Next, we computed the principal
components, loadings and communalities. The decision on the number of components to retain
was a compromise between maximising the explained initial dataset variability and reducing the
initial number of variables. In order to express the common variability between the initial
variables, rotation was performed and the factors obtained.
The KMO statistic is 0.778. Therefore, since 0.7 < 0.756 < 0.8, we concluded that there is an
average adequacy of the PCA because about 80% of the correlations are significant. When the
Bartlett’s test, in which the null hypothesis is the identity correlation matrix, displays a p-value
of approximately 0 < 0.05, then the null hypothesis can be rejected, and it is possible to
conclude that the correlations between the involved variables are sufficiently high. Therefore,
we concluded that running a PCA was adequate in this context.
According to the Kaiser criterion, when a correlation matrix is used, all components
corresponding to eigenvalues smaller than one should be excluded. Applying this criterion, the
first two components were extracted; as these explained a total of 58.9% of the variance in the
original data: 29.8% is related with the first factor and 29.1% with the second factor. The
remaining components were excluded for having eigenvalues smaller than one.
After performing a Varimax rotation, the relationships between the principal components and
the original variables became clearer and more explainable. The rotated component matrix, is
presented in Table 2.
Since all factorial scores are approximately equal or greater than 0.5, no items were eliminated
from the analysis. The Cronbach’s alfa estimates the internal consistency of factors (i.e.
reliability). The alpha for the first factor is approximately 0.8, which indicates high reliability,
70
according to Hair et al. (2014). The alpha for the second factor is 0.803, which also indicates
high reliability.
Table 2: Component and item statistics – co-creation of innovation
Component/Item Component
loading Sample
adequacy Item-total correlation
Mean Standard deviation
Technological innovation (α = 0.779) 2.590
External acquisition of R&D 0.807 0.836 0.572 2.59 1.487
Acquisition of software and equipment 0.492 0.769 0.391 2.88 1.377
Acquisition of knowledge from another organisation 0.673 0.735 0.501 2.41 1.312
Training in innovation activities 0.760 0.788 0.629 2.62 1.282
Introduction of innovation in the market 0.747 0.842 0.692 2.45 1.340
Non-technological innovation (α = 0.803) 2.147
Design 0.777 0.647 0.550 2.34 1.207
Other non-technological innovation (except design and market) 0.848 0.749 0.780 2.09 1.097
New European markets 0.660 0.783 0.501 2.07 1.168
New non-European markets 0.770 0.860 0.660 2.09 1.113
Using the PCA method, the variables concerned with knowledge were reduced from 15 variables
to four components. Using the same criteria as in the previous analysis, the first four
components were extracted, which explained a total of 64.4% of the variance in the original
data, with 19.7% related to the first factor, 17.3% to the second, 14.6% to the third and 12.8% to
the fourth factor. The remaining components were excluded for having eigenvalues smaller than
one. The KMO statistic is approximately 0.7, and the p-value for Bartlett’s test shows that the
correlation matrix is significantly different from the identity matrix. Therefore, a factorial
analysis could be performed. We performed a Varimax rotation and suppressed coefficients with
an absolute value below 0.35, obtaining the scores presented in Table 3. Since all factorial
scores are greater than 0.5, no items were eliminated from the analysis, and we considered the
factor with the highest score value from each item. The Cronbach’s alpha for the first factor is
greater than 0.8, which indicates high reliability. The other factors’ alphas are approximate to
0.7, which indicates medium reliability.
71
Table 3: Component and item statistics – knowledge
Component/Item Component loading
Sample adequacy
Item-total correlation
Mean Standard deviation
Personalisation (α = 0.820) 3.936
Receives advice from supervisor 0.913 0.679 0.781 4.15 0.841 Carries out informal meetings to share knowledge
0.832 0.730 0.712 3.91 1.181
Enjoys a close relationship with a mentor who facilitates the transfer of knowledge
0.672 0.839 0.621 3.68 1.156
Shares knowledge easily with co-workers
0.600 0.750 0.584 4.26 0.880
Creates knowledge through cooperation with customers 0.551 0.611 0.428 3.68 0.976
Codification (α = 0.715) 3.264
Shares experiences with other firms 0,727 0.740 0.476 3.15 1.099 Establishes protocols about how to share knowledge inside the firm 0,678 0.684 0.534 3.32 1.384
Establishes protocols about how to share knowledge outside the firm
0,624 0.568 0.554 3.11 1.396
Shares knowledge through manuals and internal documents
0,623 0.738 0.405 3.53 1.012
Takes minutes of meetings to document results of projects and working groups
0,566 0.590 0.413 3.21 1.291
Knowledge creation and acquisition (α = 0.700) 3.591
Creates firm priorities and builds up knowledge and dissemination 0,809 0.736 0.644 3.83 1.014
Learns from other organisations 0,803 0.658 0.524 3.53 0.868 Acquires knowledge easily through manuals and documents
0,538 0.780 0.404 3.42 0.989
Knowledge sharing (α = 0.681) 3.255
Shares knowledge with clients 0,816 0.531 0.519 3.55 1.030 Shares knowledge with staff and other firms 0,748 0.554 0.519 2.96 0.940
Using the PCA method, the variables concerned with cooperation were reduced from 29 variables
to three components. The first three components were extracted; as these explained a total of
71.6% of the variance in the original data. The remaining components were excluded for having
eigenvalues smaller than one. The KMO statistic is approximately 0.71, and the p-value for
Bartlett’s test shows the correlation matrix is significantly different from the identity matrix, so
a factorial analysis could be performed. We, then, performed a Varimax rotation and suppressed
coefficients with an absolute value below 0.35, obtaining the scores presented in Table 4. Since
all factorial scores are approximately equal or greater than 0.5, no items were eliminated from
the analysis, and we considered the factor with the highest score value from each item. The
Cronbach’s alphas for the three factors are greater than 0.89, which indicates high reliability.
72
Table 4: Component and item statistics – cooperation
Component/Item Component
loading Sample
adequacy
Item-total correlatio
n Mean
Standard deviatio
n
Cooperation with clients (α = 0.913) 3.418
Reduces overall costs 0.832 0.708 0.791 2.98 1.378
Learns with a cooperation partner 0.809 0.677 0.694 3.40 1.107
Shares technology and knowledge 0.795 0.693 0.754 3.52 1.111 Suggests ideas for improving products (goods/services) or processes
0.786 0.677 0.717 4.04 1.009
Elevates operational efficiency 0.782 0.646 0.722 3.52 1.313 Develops new products and/or processes 0.763 0.739 0.715 3.86 1.143
Develops new concepts 0.739 0.582 0.653 3.56 1.280 Generates formal and informal exchanges of people and ideas
0.703 0.557 0.692 3.30 1.199
Expands market share in geographical area of operation 0.579 0.787 0.555 3.72 1.341
Shares R&D costs 0.558 0.803 0.555 2.28 1.089
Cooperation with HEIs (α = 0.892) 2.757
Shares technology and knowledge 0.867 0.596 0.782 3.04 1.351 Develops new concepts 0.802 0.601 0.722 2.98 1.327 Develops new products and/or processes
0.786 0.592 0.687 3.17 1.291
Learns with a cooperation partner 0.733 0.513 0.676 3.09 1.248 Generates formal and informal exchanges of people and ideas 0.725 0.585 0.647 3.06 1.389
Shares R&D costs 0.715 0.678 0.602 2.13 1.115 Increases operational efficiency 0.683 0.609 0.681 2.79 1.334 Expands market share in geographical area of operation
0.650 0.562 0.627 2.26 1.113
Reduces overall costs 0.452 0.521 0.411 2.30 1.121
Cooperation with other organisations (α = 0.938) 3.067
Suggests ideas for improving products (goods/services) or processes
0.848 0.622 0.799 3.64 1.317
Generates formal and informal exchanges of people and ideas
0.830 0.712 0.820 3.13 1.236
Increases operational efficiency 0.819 0.534 0.788 3.18 1.302 Expands market share in geographical area of operation 0.788 0.702 0.674 3.29 1.254
Shares technology and knowledge 0.784 0.772 0.762 3.07 1.232 Learns with a cooperation partner 0.773 0.804 0.762 3.27 1.268 Develops new products and/or processes 0.766 0.720 0.743 3.29 1.424
Develops new concepts 0.750 0.718 0.775 2.91 1.411 Reduces overall costs 0.736 0.542 0.665 2.58 1.215 Shares R&D costs 0.709 0.813 0.729 2.31 1.145 Using the PCA method, the variables concerned with strategies of internationalisation were
reduced from 11 variables to only two components. The first two components were extracted; as
73
these explained a total of 70.5% of the variance in the original data: the first factor explained
47,4% and the second one 23,1% The remaining components were excluded for having
eigenvalues smaller than one. The KMO statistic is approximately 0.76, and the p-value for
Bartlett’s test shows the correlation matrix is significantly different from the identity matrix, so
a factorial analysis could be performed. We then performed a Varimax rotation and suppressed
coefficients with an absolute value below 0.35, obtaining the scores presented in Table 3. Since
all factorial scores are approximately equal or greater than 0.5, no items were eliminated from
the analysis, and we considered the factor with the highest score value from each item. The
Cronbach’s alphas for the two factors are greater than 0.8, which indicates high reliability.
Table 5: Component and item statistics – internationalisation
Component/Item Component
loading Sample
adequacy Item-total correlation
Mean Standard deviation
Proactive strategies (α = 0.924) 3.308 Scale economies achievement 0.874 0.793 0.819 3.24 1.445
Risk diversification 0.868 0.804 0.817 3.20 1.364
Exploration of own skills 0.860 0.839 0.825 3.39 1.262
Firm’s growth needs 0.831 0.713 0.804 3.68 1.491
Improve margins and profitability 0.807 0.800 0.790 3.44 1.285 Internationalization arises from innovation processes
0.805 0.929 0.770 3.32 1.386
Strangulation of domestic market 0.724 0.731 0.646 3.37 1.280
Monitoring of important clients 0.611 0.671 0.491 2.83 1.395
Reactive and costs strategies (α = 0.807) 2.057
Proximity to sources of raw materials
0.877 0.668 0.762 1.80 0.954
Cheap labour demand 0.846 0.633 0.741 1.83 0.919
Reaction to performance competition
0.618 0.628 0.570 2.54 1.416
By analysing the correlation matrix and the significance level of 10%, we were able to observe a
significant positive correlation between ‘cooperation with clients’ and ‘knowledge sharing’,
‘cooperation with HEIs’ and ‘knowledge creation’ and ‘co-creation of technological innovation’
and ‘cooperation with HEIs’. ‘Proactive Strategies’ of internationalisation have a positive
correlation with ‘personalization’, ‘cooperation with clients’ and ‘co-creation of non-
technological innovation’. ‘Reactive and Cost Strategies’ of internationalisation have a positive
correlation with ‘cooperation with clients’ and ‘co-creation of non-technological innovation.
However, we found a negative correlation between ‘cooperation with HEIs’ and ‘knowledge
sharing’. These correlations suggest that HEIs may be drivers of knowledge creation, but clients
may also be a source of new knowledge (see Table 6).
74
Table 6: Correlation matrix
K1 K2 K3 K4 CO1 CO2 CO3 InC1 InC2 Int1 Int2 Personalisation (K1)
1
Codification (K2) 0.000 1 Knowledge creation (K3) 0.000 0.000 1
Knowledge sharing (K4) 0.000 0.000 0.000 1
Cooperation with other firms/institutions (CO1)
-0.204 -0.180 -0.012 0.006
1
Cooperation with clients (CO2) 0.152 -0.012 0.269 0.516** 0.000 1
Cooperation with HEIs (CO3) -0.035 0.203 0.312* -0.317* 0.000 0.000 1
Co-creation of technological innovation (InC1)
0.242 -0.022 0.243 -0.063 -0.058 0.232 0.411** 1
Co-creation of non-technological innovation (InC2)
0.101 0.220 -0.019 -0.009 0.114 0.247 0.101 0.000 1
Proactive Strategies (Int1) 0.407** -0.017 0.136 0.078 -0.237 0.413** -0.084
-0.01
0 0.351*
1
Reactive and Cost Strategies (Int2) -0.257 0.074 0.089 -0.210 -0.011 0.443** 0.297 0.283 0.337* 0 1
We also examined these relationships using two linear regressions with the dependent variables
‘co-creation of technological innovation’ and ‘co-creation of non-technological innovation’ and
the dependent variables of factors related with knowledge, cooperation and internationalisation
(results in Table 7). This procedure was implemented using the ‘Enter’ method to introduce
variables, but the Wald test of parameters significance showed non-significant p-values, so a
stepwise method was performed using Akaike information criterion to insert or remove
independent variables. The best linear model, according to this criterion, is:
Co-creation of innovation (technological; non-technological) = 0 +
1*knowledge (codification+ personalisation+ creation+ sharing) +
2*cooperation with (clients + HEIs + other organisations) +
3*Internationalization (proactive strategies + reactive and cost strategies)
75
Table 7: Standardized coefficients of linear regressions. Depend variable: Co-creation of innovation (technological and non-technological)
Co-creation of technological innovation
Co-creation of non-technological innovation
Codification – 0.414*
Cooperation with HEIs 0.430* –
Proactive strategies – 0.380*
R 0.430 0.550
R Square 0.185 0.302
Adjusted R Square 0.163 0.264 * p < 0,01. ANOVA Tests were performed for the linear models and significant levels were obtained (i.e.,
p=0.006 for technological innovation and p=0.002 for non- technological innovation)
These results show that ‘cooperation with HEIs’ explains approximately 18% of ‘clients’
technological innovation’ variance. The regression coefficient is 0.43, which means that, when
‘cooperation with HEIs’ increases one unit ‘co-creation of technological innovation’ increases
about 43%. In addition, ‘codification’ and ‘proactive strategies’ explained approximately 30% of
‘co-creation of non-technological innovation’ variance. The regression coefficient of knowledge
‘codification’ is 0.414, which means that, when ‘codification’ increases one unit, ‘co-creation of
non-technological innovation’ increases about 41%, and when ‘proactive strategies’ increases one
unit, ‘co-creation of non-technological innovation’ increases about 38%.
5 Conclusions This study focused on an analysis of the relationships between knowledge, cooperation,
internationalisation and co-creation of innovation (between KIBS and clients, HEIs and other
firms/institutions). As described above in the conceptual framework section, this study was
based on an assumption made by several authors (e.g. den Hertog, 2000; Muller & Doloreux,
2009) that KIBS function are co-producers of innovation in an almost symbiotic relationship with
client firms, HEIs and other firms/institutions.
A quantitative research methodology was used to test hypotheses based on a literature review
and a research model that describes the relationships between knowledge, cooperation,
internationalisation and co-creation of innovation for Portuguese KIBS with others organisations.
The most important results of this study show that, given the current context of KIBS, the co-
creation of innovation of these firms is greatly influenced by cooperation with HEIs (i.e. co-
creation of technological innovation) and codification of knowledge and proactive strategies of
internationalisation (i.e. co-creation of non-technological innovation). We also found that a
significant positive correlation exists both between ‘cooperation with clients’ and ‘knowledge
76
sharing’ and between ‘cooperation with HEIs’ and ‘knowledge creation’. These results clearly
influence the co-creation of technological innovation, which confirmed H1 and H2. However, the
results also reveal a negative correlation between ‘cooperation with HEIs’ and ‘knowledge
sharing’. These correlations indicate that HEIs could be drivers of knowledge creation when
demanded by KIBS; as a clear difficulty IES in sharing knowledge with KIBS persists. ‘Proactive
strategies of internationalisation’ have a positive correlation with ‘personalisation’, ‘cooperation
with clients’ and ‘co-creation of non-technological innovation’ and ‘reactive and cost strategies
of internationalisation’ have a positive correlation with ‘cooperation with clients’ and ‘co-
creation of non-technological innovation’, which confirm H3.
This research contributes to the study of KIBS in three ways. First, the results provide a deeper
understanding, to be shared within the academic community, of KIBS’ influence on the
innovation processes of different stockholders involved in business cooperation networks, as well
as the process of co-creation in the field of innovation. Second, the present results have
practical implications for management practices in terms of decision-making processes in
innovation, specifically regarding the strategic management of knowledge, cooperation networks
and strategies of internationalisation which allows firms to gain insights that may increase their
productivity levels. Last, policy initiatives must be differentiated according to the different
strategies of internationalisation, and, therefore, generalisation on the support to innovation
and internationalisation of KIBS firms should be discouraged.
In future paths of research, the sample could be increased so that the results can provide a
clearer empirical view of how the variables included here relate and interact with other
variables. Other causal links and explanations are plausible. For example, a positive correlation
may exist between knowledge, cooperation and co-creation of innovation and strategies of
internationalisation. In addition, a panel study of KIBS CEOs could be conducted to determine
the depth of the present results. Finally, this study could be replicated in different countries
using comparative analysis. These improvements and updates would strengthen our
understanding of the co-creation of innovation, which can be incorporated within different
strategies and interventions in the innovation processes of KIBS and other organisations. For
instance, research on these other organisations (i.e. clients, HEIs and other firms/institutions)
could allow analysing more thoroughly the influence of KIBS on these organisations’ innovation
processes.
Acknowledgments: This research is supported by the FEDER component of the European Structural and Investment Funds, through the Operational Competitiveness and Internationalisation Programme’s (COMPETE 2020) Project No. 006971 (UID/SOC/04011) and the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology’s (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia) UID/SOC/04011/2013 Project.
77
References
Abecassis-Moedas, C.; Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, S.; Dell'era, C., Manceau, D. & Verganti, R. (2012). Key Resources and Internationalization Modes of Creative Knowledge-Intensive Business Services: The Case of Design Consultancies. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21, 315-331.
Altomonte, C.; Aquilante, T.; Békés, G. & Ottaviano G. I.P. (2013). Internationalization and innovation of firms: evidence and policy. Economic Policy, 28(76), 663-700.
Bettencourt, L., Ostrom, A., Brown, S., & Roundtree, R. (2002). Client co-production in knowledge-intensive business services. California Management Review, 44(4), 100–128.
Biderbeek, R., den Hertog, P., & Chehab, N. (1998). Management van vernieuwing in diensten. Verslag van een workshop voor ondernemers op 22 april 1998 [Management of innovation in services. Report of a workshop with entrepreneurs]. Dialogic/TNO Strategy Technology and Policy, Utrecht /Apeldoorn.
Blundel, R. & Smith, D. (2001). Business Network Report. Small Business Service, London.
Capasso, A.; Dagnino G., & Lanza, A. (Eds) (2005). Introduction: strategic capabilities and knowledge transfer within and between organizations, pp. 1 – 13 (Variety in the knowledge base of Knowledge Intensive Business Services. Research Policy, 39, 1303–1310.
Conway, S. (2000). Social network mapping and the analysis of informal organisation. Working paper RP024, Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham.
den Hertog, P. (2000). Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol.4, No.4, 491–528.
Di Maria, E., Bettiol, M., De Marchi, V. & Grandinetti, R. (2012) Developing and Managing Distant Markets: The Case of KIBS. Economia Politica, 29, 361-379.
Dyer, J.H. & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 99–126
Doloreux, D. & Laperriere, A. (2014). Internationalisation and innovation in the knowledge-intensive business services. Service Business, 8, 635-657.
Fernandes, C., Ferreira, J, & Marques, C.S. (2011). Knowledge Intensive Business Services (KIBS) in Portugal: Location and Innovative Capacity, Doctoral thesis, Universidade da Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal.
Flikkema, M., Jansen, P., & Van Der Sluis, L. (2007). Identifying neo-Schumpeterian innovation in service firms: a conceptual essay with a novel classification. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(7), 541–558.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education: Harrow
Hansen, M., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999) ‘What’s your strategy for managing knowledge?’, Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106–116.
Harris, R. & Li, Q.C. (2008). Evaluating the contribution of exporting to UK productivity growth: some microeconomic evidence. World Econ, 31(2), 212–235
Hashi, I. & Stojčić, N. (2013). The impact of innovation activities on firm performance using a multi-stage model: Evidence from the community innovation survey 4. Research Policy, 42(2), 353-366.
Hauknes, J. (1998). Services in innovation innovation in services (Step report, n.13). Oslo, Norway.
Hipp, C., Gallego, J., & Rubalcaba, L. (2012). Shaping innovation in European knowledge intensive services. Second Conference of the International Network of Business and Management Journals (INBAM), 20–22 March of 2012, Valência (Spain).
78
Johnson, B., Edquist, C., & Lundvall B. (2003). Economic Development and the National. Rio de Janeiro. http://www.globelicsacademy.net/pdf/BengtAkeLundvall_2.pdf
Kubota, L. (2009). As KIBS e a inovação tecnológica das firmas de serviços. Economia e Sociedade, Campinas, 18(2), 349–369.
Lanza, A. (2005). Managing heterogeneity, allovative balance, and behavioural and tenhonology concerns in competitive and cooperative inter-firm relationships. In Capasso, A.; Dagnino, G. & Lanza, A. (Eds), Strategic Capabilities and Knowledge Transfer Within and Between Organizations – New Perspectives from Acquisition, Networks, Learning and Evolution (pp. 17–34). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
López-Nicolás, C. & Meroño-Cerdán, A. (2011). Strategic knowledge management, innovation and performance, International journal of information management, 31(6), 502-509.
Lusch, R., Vargo, S., & Tanniru, M. (2010). Service, value networks and learning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(1), 19–31.
Marques, C.S.; Leal, C.; Marques, C.P. & Cardoso, A.R. (2015). Strategic knowledge management, innovation and performance: A qualitative study of the footwear industry. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1–17. Doi: 10.1007/s13132-015-0249-4.
Marques, C.S.; Marques, C.P.; Leal, C.T. & Cardoso, A.R. (forthcoming). Knowledge, innovation, internationalisation and performance: insights from the Portuguese footwear industry. Int. J. of Entrepreneurship and Small Business.
Mas-Vérdu F., Wensley, A., Alba, M., & Álvarez-Coque J. (2011). How much does KIBS contribute to the generation and diffusion of innovation? Service Business, 5(3), 195–212, DOI: 10.1007/s11628-011-0110-1.
Miles, I. Kastrinon, N. Flanagan, K. Bilderbeek, R. den Hertog, P., Huntink, W., & Bouman, M. (1995). Knowledge Intensive Business Services. Users and Sources of Innovation. Brussels: European Commission.
Moreira, M.R.A.; Maia, M.A.S.; Sousa, P.S.A. & Meneses, R.F. (2013). Factors influencing the internationalisation of services firms: the case of design engineering and architecture consulting firms. In Cunha, J., Snene, M. & Novoa, H. (eds), Exploring services science (pp. 246–262). London: Springer.
Muller, E. & Doloreux, D. (2009). What we should know about knowledge-intensive business services. Technology in Society, 31(1), 64–72.
Nalebuff, B. J., & Brandenburger, A. M. (1996). "Co-opetição”. Rio de Janeiro: Rocco, 28-35.
Pina, K., & Tether, B. S. (2016). Towards understanding variety in knowledge intensive business services by distinguishing their knowledge bases. Research Policy, 45(2), 401-413.
Ripolles Melia`, M.; Blesa, A. & Dobon, S.R. (2010). The influence of innovation orientation on the internationalisation of SMEs in the service sector. Serv Ind Journal, 30(5), 777–791.
Santos, J. B. & Spring, M. (2015). Are knowledge intensive business services really co-produced? Overcoming lack of customer participation in KIBS. Industrial Marketing Management, 50, 85-96.
Simmie, J. & Strambach, S. (2006). The contribution of KIBS to innovation in cities: an evolutionary and institutional perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(5), 26-40.
Storey, C. & Hahn, K. (2010). The role of knowledge management strategies and task knowledge in stimulating service innovation, Journal of Service Research, 13(4), 397-410.
Wong, P. & He, Z.-L. (2005). A comparative study of innovation behaviour in Singapore’s KIBS and manufacturing firms. The Service Industries Journal, 25(1), 23–42.
Wu, I. and Lin, H. (2009) ‘A strategy-based process for implementing knowledge management: An integrative view and empirical study’, Journal of American Society for Information and Technology, 60(4), 789–802.
79
CHAPTER 5
INTERNATIONALISATION STRATEGY OF KIBS: THE EFFECT OF KNOWLEDGE, COOPERATION AND INNOVATION4
ABSTRACT This paper is based on the results of a questionnaire applied to chief executive officers of KIBS’
firms in Portugal. The aim of this research is to explore the effects of knowledge, cooperation
and innovation in their internationalization strategy. The study used a quantitative approach,
based on a sample extracted from the Survey database to the Scientific and Technological
Potential, with KIBS activity in 2014/2015. Upon completion of data collection, systematization
of data was done through factor analysis and multiple linear regression that allowed to draw
conclusions about the objectives proposed. On the one hand, our results show that knowledge
personalization has a positive influence in proactive strategies of internationalization, such as,
external innovation and new organization methods. When KIBS cooperate with clients a positive
impact in reactive and cost strategies of the internationalization can be verified. On the other
hand, reactive and cost strategies of internationalization are negatively influenced by knowledge
personalization, knowledge sharing and internal innovation. This study contributes: (1) to
increase academic knowledge about this subject; (2) to the management practice, allowing firms
to gain insights that may develop their proactive strategies of internationalization; (3) to
reinforce the need for adjustment of public policies to encourage the development and
strengthening of proactivity of this sector with regard to internationalization.
Keywords: Internationalization strategy, Innovation, Knowledge, Cooperation, KIBS.
4 This paper was submitted and presented at the Regional HELIX Conference 2016 - International Conference on Regional Triple Helix Dynamics and submitted to the Journal of Knowledge Economy (Springer - Index in SCOPUS), “Geography & Entrepreneurship Managing Growth and Change”
80
1. Introduction
Knowledge Intensive Business Services (KIBS) refer to services involving economic activities,
which are expected to result in the creation, accumulation or dissemination of knowledge. In
addition, KIBS are key players in innovation systems, particularly in advanced regions where
manufacturing competitiveness largely depends on knowledge contents provided by highly
specialized suppliers. Over the last 20 years, authors (e.g., Abecassis-Moedas et al. 2012; Muller
and Doloreux 2009; Simmie and Strambach 2006) focused their research on understanding the
potential implications of KIBS on innovation processes and on the competitiveness of both firms
and economies. Pina and Tether (2016) argue that KIBS are increasingly recognized as being
among the most dynamic sectors of advanced economies, not only achieving high rates of
innovation but also helping their clients to innovate. According to other authors (e.g., den
Hertog 2000; Santos and Spring 2015), when focusing on the role of KIBS services in client
innovation, KIBS are seen to function as facilitators, carriers or source of innovation, and through
their, almost symbiotic, relationship with client firms - some KIBS function as co-producers of
innovation, not only through the cooperation with their clients but also with higher education
institutions (HEI) and other organizations. Often KIBS act as transmitters of knowledge,
contributing in different ways to the innovation processes of related firms (Haukness 1998; Miles
et al. 1995).
Besides that, some recent papers have shown the relevance of these firms into processes of
entering new foreign markets (Di Maria et al. 2012; Doloreux and Lapierre 2014). At the same
time, innovation has played an important role in internationalisation (Rodriguez and Nieto 2012;
Rodriguez and Nieto 2010) and it is, often, the channel for firms to increase productivity
(Altomonte et al. 2013). While a growing amount of research emphasizes internationalisation,
little academic research focuses on its consequences on innovation strategies and activities
(Doloreux and Lapierre 2014; Marques et al. 2016; Marques et al. forthcoming). The value of the
present study lies in a better understanding of the association between distinct strategies of
internationalisation, management knowledge, cooperation and innovation in KIBS firms.
In the present research, we aim to explore the effects of knowledge, cooperation and innovation
on internationalisation, applying questionnaires to CEO’s of Portuguese KIBS’ firms. In addition,
we aim to contribute to management practices by offering firms a deeper knowledge of forms to
increase competitiveness, particularly in relation to both KIBS and business clients from any
activity sector, and to provide some suggestions and improvements for national adjustment
policies.
This study used a quantitative approach, based on a sample extracted from the Survey database
to the Scientific and Technological Potential, with KIBS activity in 2014/2015. Upon completion
of data collection, systematization of data was done through the use of factor analysis and
81
multiple linear regression that allowed to draw conclusions about the goals we proposed us to
achieve.
This paper is structured as follows. The next section examines theories supporting the
hypotheses that involve the possible relationships between internationalisation, knowledge,
cooperation and innovation. After discussing some methodological considerations, the results are
presented, and the chapter concludes with a reflection on the study’s most important limitations
and implications for management practice, as well as suggestions for future avenues of research.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses 2.1 Internationalisation
The internationalization of KIBS raises challenges in spite of their specificities such as knowledge
intensity, the importance of customer interaction and intimacy in service delivery (Abecassis-
Moedas et al. 2013).
Firms beginning to internationalise may struggle to absorb knowledge from sources from foreign
markets, as their primary sources of knowledge are internal staff and clients. Product and
process innovations are the dominant types of innovations developed by these firms, most likely
due to the fact that they must adapt themselves to new markets. Comparatively, firms with
greater internationalisation experience (as identified in the study of Doloreux and Lapierre 2014)
as those with a greater share of foreign sales were more likely to develop new strategies to
better exploit and diffuse their service offering in different international markets. This is
reflected by the fact that these firms introduced more frequently strategic and managerial
innovations on the market than firms with lower international activity.
In general, the motivations of firms to internationalize can be grouped in two types: proactive
and reactive motivations (Czinkota et al 2004). Proactive motivations represent stimuli to
attempt strategic change. Reactive motivations influence firms that are responsive to
environmental changes and adjust to them by changing their activities over time. In other words,
proactive firms go international because they want to, while reactive ones go international
because they have to.
The choice of the knowledge management strategies and processes (López-Nicolás and Meroño-
Cerdán 2011; Lanza 2005), cooperation partners (Fernandes and Ferreira, 2013; Walsh et al,
2016) and innovation sources (Cassiman and Veugelers 2006; Poot et al 2009) can influences the
internationalization strategies.
82
2.2. Knowledge
According to the literature, KIBS play a role in facilitating innovation by interfacing between the
generic knowledge available in the economy and the tacit knowledge located within firms
(Kubota 2009).
Hansen et al. (1999) differentiate between two types of knowledge management: personalisation
and codification. According to the quoted authors, personalisation focuses on dialogues between
individuals, while codification extracts knowledge from the individuals who develop it and
reutilises this knowledge to achieve various purposes. Thus, for some authors (López-Nicolás and
Meroño-Cerdán 2011; Wu and Lin 2009), organisations have to find a good balance between
system strategies for codification and those strategies that concentrate more directly on human
factors through personalisation. In this context, researchers suggest that personalisation, which
focuses on tacit knowledge, is more valuable when firms seek to reinforce competitiveness and
codification is, especially valuable when the latter concentrates on explicit knowledge (Storey
and Kahn 2010).
According to Capasso et al. (2005), the past decade has seen an increase in the literature
focusing on generating processes that share, identify and transfer knowledge within and between
firms. Lanza (2005) reinforces Dyer and Nobeoka’s (2000) finding that the development of new
knowledge – along with the concurrent partners – has increasingly been undertaken in order to
obtain a competitive advantage through improved product quality and innovation, despite the
great difficulty and risk that these tasks entail. Lanza (2005) adds that this knowledge
development process consists of two related phases: sharing and creating. Thus, competing
businesses’ knowledge sharing with partners is a key step for effective knowledge creation
activities that allow firms to compete successfully in the market.
Knowledge and learning were also found to have a fundamental impact on internationalising
firms as they must assimilate and exploit newly acquired knowledge to compete and grow in
markets of which they have little to no prior knowledge (Autio et al. 2000).
Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed for the present study:
H1: Knowledge has a positive influence in internationalisation. 2.3 Cooperation
Innovation processes are of systemic and interactive in nature. Firms therefore hardly ever
innovate on their own but rather in cooperation with various agents. External sources of
innovation such as clients, suppliers, competitors and universities can be considered the main
elements of a firm’s search strategy. Previous studies have recognised the strategic importance
83
of a wide range of knowledge sources for driving innovation (Sofka and Grimpe 2010; Greco et al.
2016), and for achieving not only product but also process innovations (Huang and Rice 2012).
Fernandes and Ferreira (2013) also conclude that geographic proximity does influence
cooperation between KIBS firms and higher education institutions (HEI) and, in turn, this
cooperation influences the capacity to undertake and generate innovation.
The complex nature of the innovation process makes it increasingly necessary for firms to
cooperate with other organisations in order to carry through their research and development
initiatives. Therefore, the more intensely the firms interacts with these external agents through
cooperation agreements, the more likely it is to learn about new opportunities.
Previous research suggests that a firm can improve its innovation performance by interacting
with different partners. Tomlinson (2010) finds that inter-firm collaboration with suppliers,
buyers and competitors drives product and process innovation. Belderbos et al. (2004) find that
R&D cooperation has a positive effect on innovative performance (financial and non-financial,
like conquest of new markets), although the impact varies according to the type of partner. In
this sense, Walsh et al (2016) argue that heterogeneous collaborations (i.e., university-industry)
increase the quality of inventions while vertical collaborations (i.e., collaborations with suppliers
or customers) increases commercialization rates of inventions.
Within this dimension, relationships can be informal agreements or co-operative arrangements.
Regarding the types of relationships between actors, Conway (2000) proposes two different
forms of networks: (1) informal or social networks are those based on social relations created
within businesses; and, (2) formal networks are those that happen between firms as formal
organisations. Blundel and Smith (2001) also studied business networking and found four
different approaches: (1) industrial districts and spatial clusters; (2) supply chain networks; (3)
entrepreneurial networks; and (4) innovation networks.
Cooperation ventures can vary according to their goals. Nevertheless, this does not mean that
networks have to embody just one aim, as they can involve multi-purpose cooperation. In some
cases, cooperation is regarded as just a locus for innovation. In this sense, firms and HEI join
together in order to innovate.
As some studies reveals (Rodriguez and Nieto 2010; Rodriguez and Nieto 2012), collaboration
between firms and innovation are both relevant for the internationalization of KIBS. Various
authors (Keeble et al 1998; Welch 1992) argue that alliances allow firms to ease or accelerate
the internationalization process by providing them with access to partners’ resources and
capabilities that they need for international operations
84
According Rodriguez and Nieto (2010) a positive relationship between cooperation, innovation
and internationalisation of KIBS is also found. Thus, the results confirm the relevance of
innovation for internationalisation. KIBS that establish collaborative relationships gain easier find
access to international markets easier and improve their innovation capability. Thus, cooperation
is found to be both directly and indirectly related with internationalisation in KIBS.
As a result of these findings, the following hypothesis was defined for the present study:
H2: Cooperation has a positive influence in internationalisation.
2.4 Innovation
KIBS are part a category of service activities that is often highly innovative, as well as facilitating
innovation in other organisations. Den Hertog (2000) suggests that KIBS function as facilitators,
carriers or sources of innovation, and, through their almost symbiotic relationship with client
firms, some KIBS function as co-producers of innovation (den Hertog 2000; Mas-Vérdu 2011;
Muller and Doloreux 2009). According to Flikkema et al. (2007), innovations can be classified as
technological when they apply to products/services or processes or as non-technological
innovations when referring to organisational and marketing aspects. Johnson et al. (2003) point
out that, traditionally, studies of innovation have focused much more on technological rather
than non-technological innovation, and service and organisational innovation has been relatively
neglected. Technological innovation, as a part of innovation activities, was one of the first
approaches used in innovation activities. Schumpeter (1934) distinguishes between five types of
innovation. Two varieties exist in technological innovations (i.e. the introduction of new
products and of new processes), while the remaining three are connected to non-technological
innovation (i.e. opening new markets, developing new sources of raw materials and creating new
organisational structures).
The production of services is often, according to den Hertog (2000), the result of a joint effort of
the service provider and client. In this co-production process, the quality of the resulting service
product largely depends on the quality of interactions and communication between the service
provider and client. This author suggests that analyses of the role of KIBS in innovation
processes, on the ways in which knowledge is produced and used in the economy, as well as the
role of KIBS in these processes. The cited author further argues that, in addition to discrete and
tangible forms of knowledge exchange, process-oriented and intangible forms of knowledge flows
are crucial in these relationships.
More innovative firms can better compete and thus become more internationalised.
Internationalisation implies innovation (Boermans and Roelfsma 2015), not only because
innovations allow firms to enter new markets (van Beveren and Vandenbussche 2010) but also
85
Knowledge
Cooperation
Internationalisation
Personalisation
Codification Creation
Sharing
Clients
HEI
Firms/ Institutions
Internal External and new
organisation methods
H
H
Innovation
Proactive strategy
Reactive and coast strategy
H
because internationalisation facilitates access to inputs that are not available in domestic
markets (Salomon and Shaver 2005).
The relationship between innovation and export has often been researched from the perspective
that innovation precedes foreign market entry, and that exports are positively associated with
knowledge accumulation and innovation activities (Leon-Ledesma 2005; DiPietro and Anoruo
2006).
Past research has also demonstrated that innovation is directly linked to internationalisation
(Moreira et al. 2013; Ripolles Melià et al. 2010).
On the basis of the above evidence, we propose the following hypothesis:
H3: Innovation has a positive influence in internationalisation.
Based on the literature review, a conceptual model of research was proposed, as shown in Figure
1 below.
Source: Authors.
Figure 1: Conceptual model of research
86
3. Methodological Strategy In this study we used a quantitative methodology, applying questionnaires to CEO’s of KIBS’ firms
in Portugal, in a sample of firms that were in operation in 2014 and 2015. With this research we
aim to explore the effects of knowledge, cooperation and innovation on internationalisation.
These constructs were validated using confirmatory factor analysis, studying the reliability of a
questionnaire, previously validated through interviews with CEOs and academic experts (national
and international), specialists in KIBS and innovation, to describe the structural relationships
between the variables.
3.1 Data-source and procedures
In order to test the proposed research model and research hypotheses, data was collected via a
structured questionnaire distributed online to 397 firms that were listed as in operation and
contact was available in the database of the Inquérito ao Potencial Científico e Tecnológico
Nacional (Survey of National Scientific and Technological Potential). This survey is conducted
every year throughout Portugal. The surveyed firms were selected from the last reported year
(i.e. 2012) based on their claim to have carried out research and development (R&D) activities
and integrated four sectors: businesses, government institutions, HEIs and private non-profit
organisations. The data collection took place from May to December 2015. Valid questionnaires
were obtained from 58 firms (approximately 15% response rate).
3.2 Measures and sample
In order to refine operationalise the variables, we conducted a further literature review and
adapted scales validated in previous studies. The survey included questions selected from fourth
instruments: Community Innovation Survey - CIS2012, Fernandes (2011), Hashi and Stojčić (2013)
and López-Nicolás and Meroño-Cerdán (2011) (see Table 1).
87
Table 1: Theoretical foundations of scales used
Variables Dimensions and items Theoretical foundation
Internationalization
11 items divided into 2 dimensions: Proactive strategies – 8 items Reactive and cost strategies –
3 items
CIS (2012)
Innovation
9 items divided into 2 dimensions: Internal innovation – 4 item External innovation and new
organization methods – 5 item
CIS (2012)
Knowledge
15 items divided into 4 dimensions: Personalisation – 4 items Codification – 4 items Sharing – 4 items Creation – 3 items
López-Nicolás and Meroño-Cerdán (2011) CIS (2012)
Cooperation
29 items divided into 3 dimensions: Clients – 10 items HEI – 9 items Others Firms/institutions – 10 items
Fernandes (2011) CIS (2012)
The dataset used in this study consists of 58 KIBS firms and included 64 variables concerning
strategies of internationalisation, cooperation, knowledge and innovation. Data were collected
from Portuguese KIBS chief executive officers (CEOs). The 64 variables were grouped into six
sections of items in the questionnaire, for which some descriptive statistics are provided in
Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 below. All the items were measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
Questions about strategies of internationalisation, refer to nine five-points items, show means
between 3.3 (proactive strategies) and 2.06 (Reactive and costs strategies), with a standard
deviation of approximately, two 1.2. Relies about knowledge, covered by 15 items, display
means between 2.96 (knowledge sharing processes) and 4.26 (personalisation), with a standard
deviation of approximately, two. Answers concerning the 29 items about cooperation (i.e. HEIs,
clients and other firms/institutions) have means between 2.13 (cooperation with HEIs) and 4.04
(cooperation with clients), with a standard deviation of around one. Answers concerning the 9
items about innovation (i.e. internal and external innovation) have means between 3.7 (internal
innovation) and 3.1 (External innovation and new organization methods), with a standard deviation
of around 1.1.
In this study, we did a factor analysis of the scales used to measure: internationalization,
knowledge, cooperation and innovation, as well as a multiple linear regression. The objective of
the factorial analysis was to reduce the initial number of variables while keeping their common
characteristics. Linear regression was performed in order to estimate the contribution of
different factors to co-creation of technological and non-technological innovation. All the
statistical analyses presented were performed using IBM SPSS 22.0.
88
4 RESULTS
4.1 Principal Components Analysis
In this section, we describe the results of the above-mentioned factor analysis and linear
regression to allow the presentation and discussion of the findings.
For all dimensions under study we started by confirming if PCA was an adequate method by using
Bartlett’s sphericity test, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistics and anti-image. Subsequently, we
computed the principal components, loadings and communalities. The decision on the number of
components to retain was a compromise between maximising the explained initial dataset
variability and reducing the initial number of variables. In order to express the common
variability between the initial variables, rotation was performed and the factors obtained.
Using the Principal Components Analysis (PCA) method, the variables concerned with ‘Strategies
of internationalisation’ were reduced from 11 variables to only two components (see Table 2).
The KMO statistic is 0.76. Therefore, since 0.7 < 0.756 < 0.8, we concluded that there is an
average adequacy of the PCA because about 80% of the correlations are significant (Hair et al.
2014). When the Bartlett’s test, in which the null hypothesis is the identity correlation matrix,
has a p-value of approximately 0 < 0.05, then the null hypothesis can be rejected, and it is
possible to conclude that the correlations between the involved variables are sufficiently high.
Therefore, we concluded that running a PCA was adequate in this context.
According to the Kaiser criterion, when a correlation matrix is used, all components
corresponding to eigenvalues smaller than one should be excluded. Applying this criterion, the
first two components were extracted; as these explained a total of 70.5% of the total variance in
the original data: 47.4% is related with the first factor and 23.1% with the second one. The
remaining components were excluded for having eigenvalues smaller than one.
89
Table 2: Component and item statistics – Strategies of Internationalisation
Component/Item Component
loading Sample
adequacy Item-total correlation
Mean Standard deviation
Proactive strategies (α = 0.924) 3.308 Scale economies achievement 0.874 0.793 0.819 3.24 1.445
Risk diversification 0.868 0.804 0.817 3.20 1.364
Exploration of own skills 0.860 0.839 0.825 3.39 1.262
Firm’s growth needs 0.831 0.713 0.804 3.68 1.491
Improve margins and profitability 0.807 0.800 0.790 3.44 1.285 Internationalization arises from innovation processes
0.805 0.929 0.770 3.32 1.386
Strangulation of domestic market 0.724 0.731 0.646 3.37 1.280
Monitoring of important clients 0.611 0.671 0.491 2.83 1.395
Reactive and costs strategies (α = 0.807) 2.057
Proximity to sources of raw materials
0.877 0.668 0.762 1.80 0.954
Cheap labour demand 0.846 0.633 0.741 1.83 0.919
Reaction to performance competition
0.618 0.628 0.570 2.54 1.416
Using the PCA method, the variables related to ‘Knowledge’ were reduced from 15 variables to
four components (see Table 3). Using the same criterion as in the previous analysis, the first four
components were extracted, which explained a total of 64.4% of the total variance in the
original data, with 19.7% related with the first factor, 17.3% to the second, 14.6% toa the third
and 12.8% with the fourth factor. The remaining components were excluded for having
eigenvalues smaller than one. The KMO statistic is approximately 0.7, and the p-value for
Bartlett’s test shows that the correlation matrix is significantly different from the identity
matrix. Therefore, a factorial analysis could be performed. We performed a Varimax rotation
and suppressed coefficients with an absolute value below 0.35, obtaining the scores presented in
Table 3. Since all factorial scores are greater than 0.5, no items were eliminated from the
analysis, and we considered the factor with the highest score value from each item. The
Cronbach’s alpha for the first factor is greater than 0.8, which indicates high reliability. The
other factors’ alphas are close to 0.7, which indicates medium reliability (see Hair et al., 2014).
90
Table 3: Component and item statistics - Knowledge
Component/Item Component loading
Sample adequacy
Item-total correlation
Mean Standard deviation
Personalisation (α = 0.820) 3.93
6
Receives advice from supervisor 0.913 0.679 0.781 4.15 0.841 Carries out informal meetings to share knowledge
0.832 0.730 0.712 3.91 1.181
Enjoys a close relationship with a mentor who facilitates the transfer of knowledge
0.672 0.839 0.621 3.68 1.156
Shares knowledge easily with co-workers
0.600 0.750 0.584 4.26 0.880
Creates knowledge through cooperation with customers
0.551 0.611 0.428 3.68 0.976
Codification (α = 0.715) 3.264
Shares experiences with other firms 0,727 0.740 0.476 3.15 1.099 Establishes protocols about how to share knowledge inside the firm
0,678 0.684 0.534 3.32 1.384
Establishes protocols about how to share knowledge outside the firm
0,624 0.568 0.554 3.11 1.396
Shares knowledge through manuals and internal documents 0,623 0.738 0.405 3.53 1.012
Takes minutes of meetings to document results of projects and working groups
0,566 0.590 0.413 3.21 1.291
Knowledge creation and acquisition (α = 0.700) 3.591
Creates firm priorities and builds up knowledge and dissemination
0,809 0.736 0.644 3.83 1.014
Learns from other organisations 0,803 0.658 0.524 3.53 0.868 Acquires knowledge easily through manuals and documents 0,538 0.780 0.404 3.42 0.989
Knowledge sharing (α = 0.681) 3.255
Shares knowledge with clients 0,816 0.531 0.519 3.55 1.030 Shares knowledge with staff and other firms 0,748 0.554 0.519 2.96 0.940
Using the PCA method, the variables concerned with ‘Cooperation’ were reduced from 29
variables to only three components (see Table 4). The first three components were extracted; as
these explained a total of 71.6% of the total variance in the original data. The remaining
components were excluded for having eigenvalues smaller than one. The KMO statistic is
approximately 0.71, and the p-value for Bartlett’s test shows the correlation matrix is
significantly different from the identity matrix, so a factorial analysis could be performed. We
then performed a Varimax rotation and suppressed coefficients with an absolute value below
0.35, obtaining the scores presented in Table 4. Since all factorial scores are approximately
equal or greater than 0.5, no items were eliminated from the analysis, and we considered the
factor with the highest score value from each item. The Cronbach’s alphas for the three factors
are greater than 0.89, which indicates high reliability (see Hair et al. 2014).
91
Table 4: Component and item statistics – Cooperation
Component/Item Component
loading Sample
adequacy
Item-total correlatio
n Mean
Standard deviatio
n
Cooperation with clients (α = 0.913) 3.41
8
Reduces overall costs 0.832 0.708 0.791 2.98 1.378
Learns with a cooperation partner 0.809 0.677 0.694 3.40 1.107
Shares technology and knowledge 0.795 0.693 0.754 3.52 1.111 Suggests ideas for improving products (goods/services) or processes
0.786 0.677 0.717 4.04 1.009
Elevates operational efficiency 0.782 0.646 0.722 3.52 1.313 Develops new products and/or processes 0.763 0.739 0.715 3.86 1.143
Develops new concepts 0.739 0.582 0.653 3.56 1.280 Generates formal and informal exchanges of people and ideas
0.703 0.557 0.692 3.30 1.199
Expands market share in geographical area of operation 0.579 0.787 0.555 3.72 1.341
Shares R&D costs 0.558 0.803 0.555 2.28 1.089
Cooperation with HEIs (α = 0.892) 2.757
Shares technology and knowledge 0.867 0.596 0.782 3.04 1.351 Develops new concepts 0.802 0.601 0.722 2.98 1.327 Develops new products and/or processes
0.786 0.592 0.687 3.17 1.291
Learns with a cooperation partner 0.733 0.513 0.676 3.09 1.248 Generates formal and informal exchanges of people and ideas
0.725 0.585 0.647 3.06 1.389
Shares R&D costs 0.715 0.678 0.602 2.13 1.115 Increases operational efficiency 0.683 0.609 0.681 2.79 1.334 Expands market share in geographical area of operation
0.650 0.562 0.627 2.26 1.113
Reduces overall costs 0.452 0.521 0.411 2.30 1.121
Cooperation with other organisations (α = 0.938) 3.06
7
Suggests ideas for improving products (goods/services) or processes 0.848 0.622 0.799 3.64 1.317
Generates formal and informal exchanges of people and ideas
0.830 0.712 0.820 3.13 1.236
Increases operational efficiency 0.819 0.534 0.788 3.18 1.302 Expands market share in geographical area of operation 0.788 0.702 0.674 3.29 1.254
Shares technology and knowledge 0.784 0.772 0.762 3.07 1.232 Learns with a cooperation partner 0.773 0.804 0.762 3.27 1.268 Develops new products and/or processes
0.766 0.720 0.743 3.29 1.424
Develops new concepts 0.750 0.718 0.775 2.91 1.411 Reduces overall costs 0.736 0.542 0.665 2.58 1.215 Shares R&D costs 0.709 0.813 0.729 2.31 1.145
92
Using the PCA method, the variables related to ‘Innovation’ were reduced from nine variables to
only two components (see Table 5). The first two components were extracted; as these
explained a total of 59.7% of the total variance in the original data: the first factor explained
30.2% and the second one 29.5% The remaining components were excluded for having
eigenvalues smaller than one. The KMO statistic is approximately 0.659, and the p-value for
Bartlett’s test shows that the correlation matrix is significantly different from the identity
matrix, so a factorial analysis could be performed. We then performed a Varimax rotation and
suppressed coefficients with an absolute value below 0.35, obtaining the scores presented in
Table 5. Since all factorial scores are approximately equal or greater than 0.5, no items were
eliminated from the analysis, and we considered the factor with the highest score value from
each item. The Cronbach’s alpha for the first factor is greater than 0.8, which indicates high
reliability. The second factor’ alpha is close to 0.8, which indicates medium reliability (see Hair
et al., 2014).
Table 5: Component and item statistics - Innovation
Component/Item Component
loading Sample
adequacy Item-total correlation
Mean Standard deviation
Internal innovation (α = 0.833) 3.733
New or significantly improved services launched on the market
0.842 0.713 0.744 3.86 1.137
Activities to support the processes of new or improved business
0.836 0.839 0.667 3.68 1.121
New or significantly improved processes launched in the market
0.779 0.793 0.636 3.80 1.095
New business practices in the organization of procedures
0.731 0.804 0.604 3.59 1.069
External innovation and new organization methods (α = 0.769)
3.193
New pricing policies for services 0.831 0.668 0.685 3.08 1.193 New techniques or media (Media) to the promotion of services
0.816 0.929 0.631 3.15 1.186
New methods of distribution/placement services or new sales channels
0.725 0.633 0.593 2.98 1.196
New methods of organization of responsibilities and decision-making 0.597 0.731 0.460 3.46 1.222
New methods of organizing external relations with other firms or public institutions
0.529 0.800 0.346 3.29 1.160
By analysing the correlation matrix (Table 6) and the significance level of 10%, we were able to
observe a significant positive correlation between ‘cooperation with clients’ and ‘knowledge
sharing’, ‘cooperation with HEIs’ and ‘knowledge creation’, ‘external innovation and new
organisation methods’ and ‘Proactive Strategies’ of internationalization. ‘Proactive Strategies’ of
internationalisation have a positive correlation with ‘personalization’ and ‘cooperation with
93
clients’. ‘Reactive and Cost Strategies’ of internationalisation have a positive correlation with
‘cooperation with clients’. However, we found a negative correlation between ‘cooperation with
HEIs’ and ‘knowledge sharing’. This result reinforces the idea that higher education institutions
still assume a passive role in knowledge sharing.
Table 6: Correlation Matrix
K1 K2 K3 K4 CO1 CO2 CO3 Int1 Int2 In1 In2 Personalisation (K1)
1
Codification (K2) 0.000 1 Knowledge creation (K3)
0.000 0.000 1
Knowledge sharing (K4) 0.000 0.000 0.000 1
Cooperation with other firms/institutions (CO1)
-0.204 -0.180 -0.012 0.006
1
Cooperation with clients (CO2)
0.152 -0.012 0.269 0.516** 0.000 1
Cooperation with HEIs (CO3) -0.035 0.203 0.312* -0.317* 0.000 0.000 1
Proactive Strategies (Int1) 0.407** -0.017 0.136 0.078 -0.237 0.413** -0.084 1
Reactive and Cost Strategies (Int2)
-0.257 0.074 0.089 -0.210 -0.011 0.443** 0.297 0.000 1
Internal Innovation (In1) 0.189 -
0.058 0.207 -0.063 -0.092 0.227 0.156 0.240 -0.127 1
External and new organization methods (In2)
0.250 0.031 0.019 0.062 0.035 0.224 0.063 0.398** 0.131 0.000 1
4.2 Multivariate regression analysis We also examined the previously tested relationships using two linear regressions with the
dependent variables ‘Proactive strategies’ and ‘Reactive and coast strategies’ and the
dependent variables of factors related with knowledge, cooperation and innovation (results in
Table 7).
Assumptions of Multiple Linear Regression are: normality of the dependent variables, no
multicollinearity and homoscedasticity.
The p-values for Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilks tests of normality are greater than 5%,
then we cannot consider normality cannot be considered.
The variable ‘Proactive strategies’ displays a Skewness Statistic -0,624 with standard error 0,369
and consequently Skewness coefficient G=-1,690>-1,9 and Kurtosis Statistic –0,284 with standard
error 0,724 and consequently Kurtosis coefficient K=-0,392>-1,9.
94
The variable ‘Reactive and costs strategies’ shows a Skewness Statistic 0,225 with standard error
0,369 and consequently Skewness coefficient G=0,608<1,9 and Kurtosis Statistic –1,733 with
standard error 0,724 and consequently Kurtosis coefficient K=-2,392 which is not much less than
-1,9.
Then independent variables have symmetric and mesokurtic distributions and consequently can
be considered approximately normal.
In Table 6: Correlation matrix we can see that many correlation coefficients among all
independent variables are smaller than 0.08. We can test the multiple linear regression model
for autocorrelation with the Durbin-Watson test. Durbin-Watson statistics in the first regression
is 1,701 and in the second 2,077. Values of 1.5 < d < 2.5 show that there is no auto-correlation in
the multiple linear regression data.
Figure 2: Scatterplots
The last assumption the multiple linear regression analysis makes is homoscedasticity. We can
see in Figure 2: Scatterplots shows a random distribution of points around zero, then
homoscedasticity is verified.
The adequacy of the linear models depends of their residuals. They must be white noise, i.e.,
must have a normal distribution with zero mean and constant variance and the residuals must be
independent. Using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk normality tests are obtained with
high p-values then a normal distribution of residuals, in the two regressions, can be assumed.
Homoscedasticity was observed above as well as residuals independence thought Durbin-Watson's
results.
The linear regression was implemented using the ‘Enter’ method to introduce variables, but the
Wald test of parameters significance showed non-significant p-values, so a stepwise method was
95
performed using Akaike information criterion to insert or remove independent variables. The
initial tested linear model, is:
Internationalization (proactive strategies + reactive and cost strategies) = 0 +
1*knowledge (codification+ personalisation+ creation+ sharing) + 2*cooperation with
(clients + HEIs + other organisations) + 3* innovation (internal; external)
The best linear model, according to this criterion, is the one that have the coefficients
presented in the table 7.
Table 7: Standardized coefficients of linear regressions. Depend variable: internationalization.
Proactive strategies
Reactive and cost strategies
Personalisation 0.360* -0.357*
Cooperation with Clients -- 0.893***
Knowledge sharing -- -0.650***
External innovation and new organization methods
0.365* --
Internal Innovation -- -0.293*
R 0.546 0.824
R Square 0.298 0.679
Adjusted R Square 0.259 0.641 * p < 0,05; ***p<0.000 Table 7 shows two multivariate linear regression models for internationalization (the first one for
‘Proactive strategies’ and the second one for ‘Reactive and cost strategies’). ANOVA Tests were
performed for the linear models and significant levels were obtained (p=0.002 for ‘Proactive
strategies’ and p=0.000 for ‘Reactive and cost strategies’).
These results show that Knowledge ‘personalization’ and ‘external innovation and new
organization methods’ explains more than 29% of ‘Proactive strategies’ variance (confirmed H1
and H3). The regression coefficient of ‘Personalization’ is 0.36, which means that, when
‘Personalization’ increases 1%, ‘Proactive strategies’’ increase, approximately, 36% and when
‘External innovation and new organization methods’ increases 1%, ‘Proactive strategies’
increases about 36,5%. In addition, ‘personalization’, ‘knowledge sharing’, ‘cooperation with
clients’ and ‘internal innovation’ explained approximately 68% of ‘Reactive and cost strategies’
variance. The regression coefficient of knowledge ‘cooperation with clients’ is 0.893, which
means that, when ‘cooperation with clients’ increases one unit, ‘Reactive and cost strategies’
increases about 89,3% (confirmed H2), but when ‘personalization’ increases 1%, ‘Reactive and
cost strategies’ decreases about 35,7%, when ‘knowledge sharing’ increases 1%, ‘Reactive and
96
cost strategies’ decreases about 65% and when ‘internal innovation’ increases 1%, ‘Reactive and
cost strategies’ decreases about 29,3%.
5 CONCLUSIONS This study focused on an analysis of the effects of knowledge, cooperation and innovation on
internationalisation. As described above in the conceptual framework section, this study was
based on one assumption made by several authors (e.g. Fernandez-Esquinas and Uyarra, 2013;
Rodriguez and Nieto, 2012; Marques et al. forthcoming) that knowledge, cooperation and
innovation have a positive impact in internationalization of firms, in the specific case of this
study, which belong to the sector of KIBS.
A quantitative research methodology was used to test hypotheses based on a literature review
and a research model that describes the relationships between internationalization, knowledge,
cooperation, and innovation for Portuguese KIBS. On the one hand, our results show that
knowledge personalisation has a positive influence in proactive strategies of internationalization,
such as, external innovation and new organization methods. When KIBS cooperate with clients
there is a positive impact in reactive and cost strategies of the internationalisation. On the other
hand, reactive and cost strategies of internationalisation are negatively influenced by knowledge
personalization, knowledge sharing and internal innovation.
This research contributes to the study of KIBS in three ways: (1) to increase academic knowledge
about this subject; (2) to the management practice, allowing firms to gain insights that may
develop their proactive strategies of internationalization, specifically regarding the strategic
management of knowledge and implementing model of innovation management involving clients
and HEIs; (3) to reinforce the need for adjustment of public policies to encourage the
development and strengthening of proactivity of this sector with regard to internationalization
and formal and informal networks..
In future paths of research, the sample could be increased so that the results can provide a
clearer empirical view of how the variables included here relate and interact with other
variables. Other causal links and explanations are plausible. For example, a positive correlation
may exist between knowledge, cooperation, innovation and co-creation of innovation, and
localization. Including location (rural versus urban), the size of firms, the different role of the
actors of the development of local networks and the characteristics of this business sector
entrepreneurs could also be interesting for further investigation. In addition, a panel study of
KIBS CEOs could be conducted to determine the depth of the present results. Finally, this study
could be replicated in different countries using comparative analysis. These improvements and
updates would strengthen knowledge on the co-creation of innovation, which can be
incorporated within different strategies and interventions in the innovation processes of KIBS and
97
other organisations. For instance, research on these other organisations (i.e. clients, HEIs and
other firms/institutions) could analyse more thoroughly the influence of KIBS on these
organisations’ innovation processes.
References Abecassis-Moedas, C., Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, S., Dell'era, C., Manceau, D. and Verganti, R. (2012) ‘Key Resources and Internationalization Modes of Creative Knowledge-Intensive Business Services: The Case of Design Consultancies’. Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 21, pp. 315-331.
Altomonte, C., Aquilante, T., Békés, G. and Ottaviano G.I.P. (2013) ‘Internationalization and innovation of firms: evidence and policy’. Economic Policy, Vol. 28, No. 76, pp. 663-700.
Autio E, Sapienza H.J. and Almeida J.G. (2000) ‘Effects of age at entry knowledge intensity and imitability on international growth’, Academy Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 909–924.
Belderbos R., Carree, M. and Lokshin, B. (2004) “Cooperative R&D and firm Performance”, Research Policy, Vol. 33, No. 10, pp 1477-1492.
Blundel, R. and Smith, D. (2001). Business Network Report. Small Business Service, London.
Boermans, M. and Roelfsma, H. (2015) ‘The effects of internationalization on innovation: firm-level evidence for transition economies’, Open Economies Review, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.333–350.
Capasso, A.; Dagnino G., and Lanza, A. (Eds) (2005) ‘Introduction: strategic capabilities and knowledge transfer within and between organizations, pp. 1 – 13, Cheltenham, UK.
Cassiman, B. and Veugelers, R. (2006) ‘In Search of Complementarity in Innovation Strategy: Internal R&D and External Knowledge Acquisition’, Management Science, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 68-82.
Conway, S. (2000). Social network mapping and the analysis of informal organisation. Working paper RP024, Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham.
Czinkota, M.R., Ronkainen, I.A. and Ortiz-Buonafina, M. (2004) The export marketing imperative, Australia, Thomson.
den Hertog, P. (2000) ‘Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of innovation’, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 491–528.
Di Maria, E., Bettiol, M., De Marchi, V. and Grandinetti, R. (2012) ‘Developing and Managing Distant Markets: The Case of KIBS’, Economia Politica, Vol. 29, pp. 361-379.
DiPietro W.R. and Anoruo E (2006) ‘Creativity innovation and export performance’, Journal of Policy Modeling, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.133–139.
Dyer, J.H. and Nobeoka, K. (2000) ‘Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 99–126.
Doloreux, D. and Laperriere, A. (2014) ‘Internationalisation and innovation in the knowledge-intensive business services’, Service Business, Vol. 8, pp. 635-657.
Fernandes, C., Ferreira, J, and Marques, C.S. (2011) Knowledge Intensive Business Services (KIBS) in Portugal: Location and Innovative Capacity, Doctoral thesis, Universidade da Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal.
Fernandes, C., and Ferreira, J. (2013) ‘Knowledge spillovers: cooperation between universities and KIBS’, R&D Mangement, Vol. 45, No.5, pp: 461-472.
Flikkema, M., Jansen, P., and Van Der Sluis, L. (2007) ‘Identifying neo-Schumpeterian innovation in service firms: a conceptual essay with a novel classification’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 16, No. 7, pp. 541–558.
98
Greco, M., Grimaldi, M., and Cricelli, L. (2016) ‘An analysis of the open innovation effect on firm performance’, European Management Journal, Available online 12 March 2016 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237316300147.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., and Anderson, R.E. (2014) Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education: Harrow
Hansen, M., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999) ‘What’s your strategy for managing knowledge?’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 106–116.
Hashi, I. and Stojčić, N. (2013) ‘The impact of innovation activities on firm performance using a multi-stage model: Evidence from the community innovation survey 4’. Research Policy, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 353-366.
Hauknes, J. (1998) Services in innovation innovation in services (Step report, n.13). Oslo, Norway.
Huang, F. and Rice, J. (2012) ‘Openness in product and process innovation’, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp 1-24.
Johnson, B., Edquist, C., and Lundvall B. (2003) Economic Development and the National. Rio de Janeiro. http://www.globelicsacademy.net/pdf/BengtAkeLundvall_2.pdf
Keeble, D., Lawson, C., Smith, H.L., Moore, B., and Wilkinson, F. (1998) ‘International processes, networking and local embeddedness in technology-intensive small firms’. Small Business Economics, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 327–342.
Kubota, L. (2009) ‘As KIBS e a inovação tecnológica das firmas de serviços’, Economia e Sociedade, Campinas, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 349–369.
Lanza, A. (2005) ‘Managing heterogeneity, allovative balance, and behavioural and tenhonology concerns in competitive and cooperative inter-firm relationships’. In Capasso, A.; Dagnino, G. and Lanza, A. (Eds), Strategic Capabilities and Knowledge Transfer Within and Between Organizations – New Perspectives from Acquisition, Networks, Learning and Evolution (pp. 17–34). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Leon-Ledesma MA (2005) ‘Exports product differentiation and knowledge spillovers’, Open Economies Review, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 363–379.
López-Nicolás, C. and Meroño-Cerdán, A. (2011) ‘Strategic knowledge management, innovation and performance’, International journal of information management, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 502-509.
Marques, C.S., Leal, C.; Marques, C.P. and Cardoso, A.R. (2016) ‘Strategic knowledge management, innovation and performance: A qualitative study of the footwear industry’, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 659-675.
Marques, C.S., Marques, C.P.; Leal, C.T. and Cardoso, A.R. (forthcoming) ‘Knowledge, innovation, internationalisation and performance: insights from the Portuguese footwear industry’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business.
Mas-Vérdu F., Wensley, A., Alba, M., and Álvarez-Coque J. (2011) ‘How much does KIBS contribute to the generation and diffusion of innovation?’, Service Business, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 195–212.
Miles, I. Kastrinon, N. Flanagan, K. Bilderbeek, R. den Hertog, P., Huntink, W., and Bouman, M. (1995) Knowledge Intensive Business Services. Users and Sources of Innovation. Brussels: European Commission.
Moreira, M.R.A.; Maia, M.A.S.; Sousa, P.S.A. and Meneses, R.F. (2013) ‘Factors influencing the internationalisation of services firms: the case of design engineering and architecture consulting firms’. In Cunha, J., Snene, M. and Novoa, H. (eds), Exploring services science (pp. 246–262). London: Springer.
99
Muller, E. and Doloreux, D. (2009) ‘What we should know about knowledge-intensive business services’. Technology in Society, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 64–72.
Pina, K. and Tether, B.S. (2016) ‘Towards understanding variety in knowledge intensive business services by distinguishing their knowledge bases’. Research Policy, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 401-413.
Poot, T., Faems, D. and Vanhaverbeke, W. (2009) ‘Toward a dynamic perspective on open innovation: a longitudinal assessment of the adoption of internal and external innovation strategies in the netherlands’, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 13, No.2, pp. 177-200.
Ripolles Melià, M., Blesa, A. and Dobon, S.R. (2010) ‘The influence of innovation orientation on the internationalisation of SMEs in the service sector’, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 777–791.
Rodriguez, A. and Nieto M.J. (2012) ‘The internationalization of knowledge-intensive business services: the effect of collaboration and the mediating role of innovation’, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 1057-1075.
Rodriguez, A. and Nieto M.J. (2010) ‘Cooperation and innovation in the internationalization of knowledge-intensive business services’. In J. Pla-Barber and J. Alegre (Eds.), Reshaping the boundaries of the firm in an era of global interdependence. Progress in international business research (Vol. 5, pp. 247-270). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
Salomon, R. and Shaver, J. (2005) ‘Learning by exporting: new insights from examining firm innovation’, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.431–460.
Santos, J. B. and Spring, M. (2015) ‘Are knowledge intensive business services really co-produced? Overcoming lack of customer participation in KIBS’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 50, pp. 85-96.
Simmie, J. and Strambach, S. (2006) ‘The contribution of KIBS to innovation in cities: an evolutionary and institutional perspective’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 26-40.
Sofka, W. and Grimpe, C. (2010) ‘Specialized search and innovation performance – evidence across Europe’, R&D Management, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp 310-323.
Storey, C. and Hahn, K. (2010) ‘The role of knowledge management strategies and task knowledge in stimulating service innovation’, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 397-410.
Tomlinson, P.R. (2010) ‘Co-operative ties and innovation: some new evidence for UK manufacturing’, Research Policy, Vol. 39, pp.762–775.
van Beveren, I. and Vandenbussche, H. (2010) ‘Product and process innovation and firms’ decision to export’, Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.3–24.
Walsh, J.P, Lee, Y.N. and Nagaoka, S. (2016) ‘Openness and innovation in the US: Collaboration form, idea generation and implementation’, Research Policy, Vol. 45, No. 8, pp. 1660-1671.
Welch, L.S. (1992) ‘The use of alliances by small firms in achieving internationalization’, Scandinavian International Business, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 21–37.
Wu, I. and Lin, H. (2009) ‘A strategy-based process for implementing knowledge management: An integrative view and empirical study’, Journal of American Society for Information and Technology, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 789–802.
100
101
PART III
102
103
CHAPTER 6
Final considerations In the introduction the general objectives of this research thesis were defined: (1) To map the
scientific publications, intellectual structure and research trends related to the intensive
business services in knowledge, in order to develop a description of the main characteristics of
KIBS and to identify the theoretical approaches used in the analysis of this type of business (eg,
creation, sharing and knowledge transfer focused on KIBS, cooperation and innovation networks,
localization and internationalization strategies), and the different connections between each of
the identified dimensions; (2) To propose a conceptual model of analysis to be tested empirically
in subsequent quantitative studies; (3) To explore the effects and relationships established at
the level of knowledge, cooperation and internationalization in the process of co-production
innovation of KIBS firms; (4) To identify and to explore the effects of innovation, knowledge and
cooperation in the internationalization of KIBS.
In Chapter 2 we mapped the scientific publications, intellectual structure and research trends
related to the intensive business services in knowledge. Chapter 3 was based on a qualitative
study through interviews with KIBS’ CEOs and academic experts in order to define the dimensions
and to propose a conceptual model to be tested in future studies. Chapter 4 includes research on
the effects of the dimensions of knowledge, cooperation and internationalization in co-
production innovation. In Chapter 5, the empirical study focused on the effects and the
relationships established between the dimensions knowledge, cooperation and innovation with
regards to internationalization strategies of KIBS.
This chapter presents the main findings resulting from the previous chapters, with special
emphasis on the results that respond to the initially defined research questions, as well as the
main constraints identified along the chapters’ progress and new avenues for research.
1. Conclusions
In order to answer the five central questions of this investigation were carried out four empirical
studies. In this section, a presentation of the answers to these central research questions is
provided.
104
What are the main trends in KIBS research?
To address this issue the study "Knowledge Intensive Business Services Research: Bibliometric
study of the leading international journals (1994-2014) concluded that KIBS can be divided into
four clusters brought: (1) Innovation - concepts and process; (2) Knowledge - creation and
sharing, co-production and transfer; (3) networks of innovation and cooperation; and (4) location
and customer relationships. These reflect the key dimensions that allow a better understanding
of the conceptual definition of KIBS, the interaction with other firms and their role in the
economy.
The articles that play a greater role in the KIBS research field are: (1) Muller and Zenker (2001);
(2) Hipp and Grupp (2005); (3) Bettencourt et al. (2002); (4) Tuominen and Toivonen (2009); (5)
Miozzo and Grimshaw (2005); and (6) Antonelli (1998), based on the total number of citations.
The network of co-occurrence of the categories resulted in the "hot" categories: Business and
Economy (according to our redefinition), Strategy, Operations Research and Management
Studies, Geography and Environmental Studies, Engineering and Information and Library Science.
KIBS research is, thus, applied in many areas. The application of the KIBS theory is emerging in
unexpected areas; for example, an emerging area in the literature is the tourism sector. With
respect to the keywords, the relationship between studies has become increasingly closer.
According to the literature, some "hot topics" were focused, for a long time, in the customer
orientation and telecommunications, while others have been changing over the years, the
market or the process of information over the period 2004-2005, globalization and collaboration
over the period 2006-2007, then the focus directed to the process of innovation and services
innovation models over the period 2008-2009, and moved to the Internet and network effects
over the period 2010 -2011. This study sought to analyse the current situation focused in the
field of innovation and knowledge. In addition a number of papers focused on networking and
interaction between KIBS and client. Such insights can be helpful to point directions for future
research. It also seems to be possible to conclude that internationalization is, yet, "weak" in KIBS
research. Furthermore, as the cooperation between KIBS and other firms brings recognized
benefits to the latter (Wong and He, 2005), as well as throughout the economy (Shi et al., 2014)
it would also be beneficial to take this research in an internationally collaborative way. In
addition, internationalization is a theme that seems to gain prominence in the literature on KIBS
(Doloreux and Laperriere, 2014). In light of these results, internationalization was an exploited
dimension in research and it can be, further, explored in future research.
What relations are established between the key dimensions in the Portuguese KIBS firms?
How is the accumulated knowledge transferred for firms with which the KIBS relate?
The results of this qualitative study "KIBS' key dimensions: a qualitative study on innovation,
knowledge, networks, location and internationalization", allowed encouraging the discussion
about the importance of KIBS and its role in innovation and internationalization, taking into
105
account the perspectives of both CEOs (practice) and academic (theoretical). The results
obtained support the relationship between the selected key dimensions (innovation, knowledge,
network, localization and internationalization) - proposed in the literature review. Therefore,
the results indicate that the high levels of cooperation with other firms and universities, the
urban location, and social, institutional and technical knowledge of KIBS favour innovation inputs
of both firms into new foreign markets - internationalization. These results are in line with other
authors, as Fernandes and Ferreira (2013); Pinto, Fernandez-Esquinas and Uyarra (2013) and
Abecassis-Coins (2012). Furthermore, our research suggests that high levels of innovation
promote the internationalization, as the study of Rodriguez and Nieto (2012). These findings
inspired a theoretical research model, identifying the main dimensions, sub-dimensions and
possible relationships between them - later tested through a quantitative approach. Therefore,
the subsequent investigation validated the measuring instrument, collected information from the
CEOs of Portuguese KIBS (P-KIBS and T-KIBS).
What contributes to the co-production of innovation?
This study "Exploring the relationships between KIBS and innovation: a quantitative analyse in
Portuguese Firms" focused on the analysis of the relationship between knowledge, cooperation,
internationalization with the co-creation of innovation (between KIBS and clients, high
educational institutions and other firms/institutions). This study was based on several authors
(e.g. den Hertog, 2000; Müller & Doloreux, 2009), who argue that KIBS act as co-producers of
innovation in, an almost symbiotic, relationship with client firms, higher education institutions
and other firms/institutions. The most important results of this quantitative study show that,
given the current context of KIBS, the co-creation of innovation of these firms is greatly
influenced by cooperation with higher education institutions (i.e. co-creation of technological
innovation) and codification of knowledge and proactive strategies of internationalization (i.e.,
co-creation of non-technological innovation). There is, also, a significant positive correlation
between both "cooperation with clients" and "knowledge sharing" and between "cooperation with
higher education institutions" and "knowledge creation". These results clearly influence the co-
creation of technological innovation, which confirmed the hypothesis H1: knowledge has a
positive influence on co-creating innovation; and H2: cooperation has a positive influence on co-
creating innovation, initially formulated. However, the results also revealed a negative
correlation between "cooperation with higher education institutions" and "knowledge sharing".
These correlations indicate that the High education institutions (HEI) can be vehicles of
knowledge creation, as requested by KIBS; It still remains a clear difficulty in sharing knowledge
between HEIs and KIBS, the "pro-active internationalization strategies" show a positive
correlation with the "personalization", "cooperation with clients and 'co-creation of non-
technological innovation "as the" reactive strategies and internationalization costs "have a
positive correlation with" cooperation with clients "and" co-creation of non-technological
106
innovation ", confirming H3 strategies internationalization have a positive influence on co-
creating innovation.
This research contributes to the study of KIBS in three main aspects: (1) the results allow a more
extensive a scientific knowledge about the influence of KIBS on innovation processes of different
stakeholders involved in cooperation networks between firms, and the co-creation process in the
field of innovation; (2) the results have practical implications for management practices in terms
of decision-making processes in innovation, especially in relation to strategic knowledge
management, networking and internationalization strategies, which enables firms to gain insights
that can increase their levels of productivity and cooperation. Finally, policy initiatives should be
differentiated according to the different internationalization strategies, and thus the widespread
support for innovation and internationalization of KIBS firms should be discouraged.
What is the contribution of the key dimensions to the process of internationalization of
KIBS?
The first quantitative study focused on the analysis of the effects of knowledge, cooperation and
innovation in internationalization, based on various authors (eg Fernandez-Esquinas & Uyarra,
2013;. Rodriguez & Nieto, 2012) who argue that knowledge, cooperation and the innovation have
a positive impact on the internationalization of firms in the specific case of this study - the KIBS
sector. Our results show that personalization of knowledge has a positive influence on pro-active
internationalization strategies, such as external innovation and new methods of organization. On
the one hand, when KIBS cooperated with clients, there is a positive impact on reactive
strategies and cost of internationalization; On the other hand, reactive and internationalization
strategies costs are negatively impacted by customized knowledge, knowledge sharing and
internal innovation.
This research contributes to the study of KIBS in three ways: (1) to increase academic knowledge
on the subject; (2) to practice management, allowing firms to gain insights that can develop
their proactive internationalization strategies regarding specifically the strategic management of
knowledge and implementation of innovation management models involving clients and higher
education institutions; (3) to reinforce the need for adjustment of public policies to encourage
the development and strengthening of proactivity in this sector with regard to
internationalization and formal and informal networks.
One of the distinguishing characteristics of these firms (KIBS) is that they rely on different types
of inputs of inputs used by traditional industrial firms. Being the knowledge an intangible asset,
KIBS face a problem-challenge of managing their resources, because there is a special process of
knowledge sharing impressing specific features for the business. In addition to its importance in
terms of creation and dissemination of knowledge, KIBS are strongly related to the process of
innovation (table 1), which is a key catalyst for growth and economic development.
107
Table 1: Research proposal model results
Co-creation of innovation Internationalization Technological Non-
technological Proactive strategy
Reactive and cost strategy
Personalisation + - Codification +
Knowledge sharing
-
Cooperation with clients
+
Cooperation with HEI
+
Proactive strategies
+
External innovation
+
Internal innovation
-
Overall, with this research, we aim to contribute to an increase in theoretical knowledge to the
academic community, to take another step in the investigation into the influence that KIBS play
in the business innovation process. On the other hand, we aimed to contribute at the
management practices level by offering firms the knowledge to enable them to increase
competitiveness, both in relation to KIBS as for their clients, which may represent any sector of
activity. Finally, it is expected that the study will provide important suggestions to the national
adjustment and improvement of public policies towards this sector.
2. Limitations and future research
It is important now to explain the main limitations encountered throughout this investigation.
The first limitation, on the bibliometric study, relates to the use of a single database, Web of
Science ISI, and in addition to include, only, articles published in journals exclusively assigned to
categories of business and economics.
A limitation of the qualitative study is related to the strong dependence on the context analysis
and data collection. Therefore, the results must be understood in the light of the data and the
qualitative and subjective aspects need to be framed in the structure adopted for the
interviews.
A key limitation relates to the reduced size of the sample. Collecting a larger sample would have
benefited the research, however, the difficulty to access information on KIBS firms in activity
that have innovated in recent years has resulted from a smaller number of firms that were
involved in Research and Development in recent years. This limitation is related to definition of
108
the object of study. As stated by Lakatos and Marconi (1996), delimiting means deciding what is
included in and out of the subject matter and consequently defining limits for research. In this
study, the population would be too large, so, for practical reasons we had to limit the size of the
sample. In view of this decision the sample became very small, relative to population, also
explained by the closing of some firms in the sample or a change in their contact.
Another limitation is related to the relatively small response rate. The attempt to reduce the
maximum number of questions included in the questionnaire in order to encourage respondents
to fill up, has, to some extent, failed, as we are still aware that it was extensive, with many
variables, related to selected key dimensions, which require more data. On the other hand,
there were questions that remained unanswered in the questionnaires or were not answered
consistently, which may, to a certain extent, biased the results of the study. One of the studies
consisted of interviews; however, it would be convenient an increase in the number of
interviews, to better understand the relationships established between the different dimensions,
as they allow a deeper knowledge of the issues under research.
A final limitation relates to the fact that the dependent and independent variables were
collected simultaneously, and from the same source.
Regarding the proposed suggestions for future research, these arise from the conducted research
process where limitations were detected.
Our first suggestion is that other researchers apply measuring instruments suggested in this
research to a larger sample, in order to use other (more robust) statistical methods, and with
more interviews with CEOs and academic experts in the subject, allowing to make a qualitative
assessment to KIBS that innovate. We also suggest that, in the future, different sources of
secondary data is used in order to include different variables.
Another suggestion for future research involves a broader study to compare the main differences
between the various types of KIBS reported in the literature, as well as between its distinctive
location in Portugal (rural and urban) and other countries, in order to explore if there is a direct
influence of corporate culture of the country on KIBS strategy. In this sense, further research on
the reasons for the scarce level of investment, in Portugal, where the government plays a critical
role as the main R & D investment promoter, could contrast with other countries.
Johnson et al. (2003) point out that, traditionally, studies on innovation have focused more on
technological innovation than on non-technological innovations, and innovations in services and
organizational have been relatively neglected.
In our perspective, there are still many questions to explore in relation to knowledge intensive
business services. In this sense, we included more suggestions that may be developed in future
109
studies, particularly, if the decision to innovate and/or internationalize is proactive or reactive,
i.e. if the firms felt the need to innovate and/or internationalise or if the firm anticipated or
attended a detected opportunity; realise what mechanisms KIBS can use to be more present in
the knowledge transfer process and in the co-production of innovation with its clients; and
finally, to determine what type of strategies must be implemented at the decision to innovate
and internationalize level.
At a later stage (in future investigations), we aim to select client firms, in which the innovation
process KIBS studied influenced, in order to explore, from the client’s perspective, the actual
influence that these KIBS firms played on innovation and, thus, crossing data.
110
References
Abecassis-Moedas, C., Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, S., Dell’Era, C., Manceau, D. & Verganti, R.
(2012). Key Resources and Internationalization Modes of Creative Knowledge-Intensive
Business Services: The Case of Design Consultancies. Creativity and Innovation Management,
21, 315-331.
Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P.J. (1993). “Strategic assets and organizational rent”. Strategic
Management Journal, 14 (1), 33-46.
Antonelli, C. (1998). “Localizad technological change, new information technology and the
knowledge and the knowledge-based economy: the European evidence”. Journal of
Evolutionary Economics, v.8, 177-198.
Bettencourt, L., Ostrom, A., Brown, S. and Roundtree, R. (2002). “Client Co-Production in
Knowledge-Intensive Business Services”. California Management Review, 44 (4), 100-128.
Biderbeek, R., den Hertog, P. and Chehab, N. (1998). “Management vanvernieuwing in
diensten”. Verslag van een workshop voor ondernemers op 22 april 1998 [Management of
innovation in services. Report of a workshop with entrepreneurs]. Dialogic / TNO Strategy
Technology and Policy, Utrecht /Apeldoorn.
Capasso, A.; Dagnino G. and Lanza, A. (Eds) (2005). Introduction: Estrategic capabilities and
knowledge transfer within and between organizations, pp. 1 – 13 (Variety in the knowledge
base of Knowledge Intensive Business Services. Research Policy 39, 1303–1310.
Cassel, C. and Symon, G. (2004). Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational
Research. Sage Publications.
Consoli, D. and Elche-Hortelano, D. (2010) “Variety in the knowledge base of Knowledge
Intensive Business Services”. Research Policy 39, 1303–1310.
Corrocher, N ; Cusmano, L (2014) “The 'KIBS Engine' of Regional Innovation Systems: Empirical
Evidence from European Regions, Regional Studies, 48 (7), pp 1212-1226. DOI:
10.1080/00343404.2012.731045.
Czamitzki, D. and Spielkamp, A. (2003) “Business Services in Germany: Bridges for
Innovation”. Service Industries Journal, 23 (2), pp 1-30.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642060412331300862.
de Jong, J., Bruins, A., Dolfsma, W. and Meijaard, J. (2003) “Innovation in service firms
explored: what, how and why?” EIM, Business and Policy Research.
den Hertog, P. (2000) “Knowledge-intensive Business Services as co-producers of Innovation”.
International Journal of Innovation Management, 4 (4), 491-528.
111
Doloreux, D. & Laperriere, A. (2014). Internationalisation and innovation in the knowledge-intensive business services. Service Business, 8, 635-657.
Doloreux, D. and Muller, E. (2007) “The key dimensions of knowledge-intensive business
services (KIBS) analysis. A decade of evolution”, Working Paper Firms and Regions No.
U1/2007, Fraunhofer-Institut für System-und Innovationsforschung-ISI, Karlsruhe.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and J.A.Martim (2000) “Dynamic capabilities: What are they?” Strategic
Management Journal, Special Issue 21 (10-11): 345-369.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and F.M. Santos (2002), “Knowledge based view: a new theory of stratety? In
A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas and R. Whittington (eds), Handbook of Strategy and Management,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ferreira, J; Marques, Carla S; Fernandes, C. (2012) "Contribution of location theories for
Regional Development: an empirical study applied to technology-based firms", International
Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 4 (5): 414 - 429.
Freel, M. (2006) “Patterns of Technological Innovation in Knowledge-Intenive Business
Services”. Industry and Innovation, 13 (3): 335-358.
Gallouj, F. and Weinstein, O. (1997) “Innovation in services”. Research Policy, 26, 537-556.
Gallouj, F. (2002) “Innovation in services and the attendant old and new myths”. Journal of
Socio-economics, 31 (2): 137–154.
Gallouj, F., and P. Windrum (2009) “Services and services innovation”. Journal of
Evolutionary Economics 19: 141-148.
Grant, R.M. (1996) “Toward a knowledge based theory of the firm”. Strategic Management
Journal, Winter Special Issue 17: 109-122.
Grant, R.M. (2003) “The knowledge based view of the firm”. In D.O. Faulkner asn A. Campbel
(eds), The Oxford Hanbook of Strategy, New York: Oxford University Press.
Gulati, R. (1999) “Network location and learning: the influence of network resources and firm
capabilities on alliance formation”, Strategic Management Journal, 20 (5): 397-420.
Gulati, R., N. Nohria and A. Zaheer (2000) “Strategic network”, Strategic Management
Journal, Special Issue 21 (10-11): 203-215.
Hansen, M. (2002) “Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit
companies”, Organization Science, 13: 232-48.
Hauknes, J. (1998). Services in innovation innovation in services (Step report, n.13). Oslo,
Noruega.
He, ZL and Wong, PK (2009) “Knowledge interaction with manufacturing clients and
innovation of knowledge-intensive business services firms”, Innovation-Management Policy &
Practice, 11 (3): 264-278 DOI: 10.5172/impp.11.3.264.
112
Hertog, P.D. (2000) Knowledge-Intensive Business Services as co-producers of innovation.
International Journal of Innovation Management, 04, 491-528.
Howells, J. (2000) “Innovation and Services: New Conceptual Frameworks”, CRIC Discussion
Paper 38 Manchester: University of Manchester.
Howells, J.R.L. and Tether, B.S. (2004). Innovation in Services: Issues at Stake and Trends.
Brussels, Luxembourg: European Commission.
Johne, A. and Storey, C. (1998) “New service development: a review of the literature and
annotated bibliography”. European Journal of Marketing, 32 (3/4): 184-252.
Johnson, B.; Edquist, C. and Lundvall B. (2003). Economic development and the national. Rio
de Janeiro. http://www.globelicsacademy.net/pdf/BengtAkeLundvall_2.pdf
Koch, A. and Stahlecker, T. (2006) “Regional Innovation Systems and Foundation of
Knowledge Intensive Business Services”. European Planning Studies, 14 (2): 123-146.
Koch, A. and Strotmann, H. (2008) “The impact of functional integration and spatial proximity
on the post-entry performances of Knowledge Intensive Business Service Firms”. International
Small Business Journal, 24 (6): 610-634.
Kogut, B. and U. Zander (1992) “Knowledge of the fims, combinative capabilities, and the
replication of technology”, Organization Science, 3 (3): 383-397.
Kox, H. (2002) Growth challenges for the Dutch business services industries: international
comparison and policy issues. Hague: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
Kubota, L. (2009) “As KIBS e a inovação tecnológica das firmas de serviços”. Economia e
Sociedade, Campinas, v. 18, n.2 (36), 349-369, ago. 2009.
Lakatos, E.M. & Marconi, M.A. (1996). Fundamentos de metodologia científica. (3.ª ed.). São
Paulo: Editora Atlas.
Lanza, A. (2005), “Managing heterogeneity, allovative balance, and behavioural and
tenhonology concerns in competitive and cooperative inter-firm relationships”. In: A.
Capasso; G. Dagnino & A. Lanza (Eds), Strategic Capabilities and Knowledge Transfer Within
and Between Organizations – New perspectives from acquisition, networks, learning and
evolution, pp. 17-34 (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
Landry, R.; Amara, N. and Doloreux, D. (2012) "Knowledge-exchange strategies between KIBS
firms and their clients”, Service Industries Journal, 32 (2): 291-320. DOI:
10.1080/02642069.2010.529131.
Leiponen, A. (2005) “Organization of Knowledge and Innovation: The Case of Finnish Business
Services”. Industry and Innovation, 12 (2): 185-203.
113
Mas-Vérdu F., Wensley, A., Alba, M. and Álvarez-Coque J. (2011) “How much does KIBS
contribute to the generation and diffusion of innovation?” Service Business, 5 (3): 195-212.
DOI: 10.1007/s11628-011-0110-1.
Mas-Tur, A and Soriano, DR (2014) “The level of innovation among young innovative
companies: the impacts of knowledge-intensive services use, firm characteristics and the
entrepreneur attributes” Service Business, 8 (1): 51-63. DOI: 10.1007/s11628-013-0186-x.
Marques, C.S. and Monteiro-Barata, J. (2006) “Determinants of the Innovation Process: An
Empirical Test for the Portuguese Manufacturing Industry”. Management Research, 4 (2)
(Spring): 111-124.
Mention, A.L. (2011) “Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the
service sector: Which influence on innovation novelty?” Technovation, 31 (1): 44–53
Miles, I. (2000) “Services innovation: coming of age in the knowledge based economy”.
International Journal of Innovation Management, 4 (4): 371-389.
Miles, I. (2005) “Innovation in Services”. In: J. Fagerberg; D.C. Mowery & R.R. Nelson (Eds),
The Oxford handbook of innovation, pp. 433 - 458 (New York: Oxford University press)
Miles, I. Kastrinon, N. Flanagan, K. Bilderbeek, R. den Hertog, P., Huntink, W. and Bouman,
M. (1995) Knowledge intensive Business services. Users and sources of Innovation. Brussels:
European Comission.
Muller, E. (2001) Innovation Interactions between Knowledge Intensive Business Services and
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. New York: Physica-Verlag.
Muller, E. & Doloreux, D. (2009). What we should know about knowledge-intensive business
services. Technology in Society, 31(1), 64-72.
Nonaka, I. and R. Toyama (2002) “A firm as a dialectial being: towards a dynamic theory of a
firm”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 11 (5): 995-1009.
Pinto H., Fernandez-Esquinas M. and Uyarra E. (2015). Universities and knowledge-intensive
business services (KIBS) as sources of knowledge for innovative firms in peripheral regions,
Regional Studies, 49(11), 1873-1891.
Porter-Liebeskind, J. (1996) “Knowledge, strategy and the theory of the firm”, Strategic
Management Journal, Winter Special Issue.
Rodríguez, A. & Nieto M. J. (2012) The internationalization of knowledge-intensive business
services: the effect of collaboration and the mediating role of innovation. The Service
Industries Journal, 32 (7), 1057-1075, DOI: 10.1080/02642069.2012.662493.
Scarso, E and Bolisani, E (2012) “Trust in knowledge exchanges between service providers and
clients: a multiple case study of KIBS”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 10 (1):
16-26. DOI: 10.1057/kmrp.2011.28.
114
She, S. and Nagahira, A (2012) “The impact of KIBS on Japanese manufacturing corporations
from the client-side point of view”, International Journal of Technology Management, 57 (4):
201-226 DOI: 10.1504/IJTM.2012.045536.
Shearmur, R. and Doloreux, D. (2008) “Urban Hierarchy or Local Buzz? High-Order Producer
Service and (or) Knowledge-Intensive Business Service Location in Canada, 1991-2001”, The
Professional Geographer, 60 (3): 333 - 355.
Shi, X; Wu, YR; Zhao (2014) “Knowledge intensive business services and their impact on
innovation in China”, Service Business, 8 (4): 479-498 DOI: 10.1007/s11628-013-0202-1
Skjolsvik, T; Lowendahl, BR; Kvalshaugen, R and Fosstenlokken, SM (2007) “Choosing to learn
and learning to choose: Strategies for client co-production and knowledge development”,
California Management Review, Vol. 49, Nº 3, pp 110 -+
Small, H. (1973) “Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship
between two documents”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24 (4):
265-269
Teece, D. J.; G.Pisano and Shuen, A. (1997) “Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management”. California Management Review, 40 (3): 289-292.
Tether, B. (2003) “The Sources and Aims of Innovation in services: variety between and within
sectors”. Economics of innovation and new technology, 12 (6): 481-505.
Tidd, J.; Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2005) Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological,
Market and Organizational Change. England: John Wiley & Sons.
Toivonen, M. (2004). Expertise as Business: Long- Term Development and Future Prospectives
of Knowledge Intensive Business Services (KIBS). Doctoral Dissertation Series 2004/2, Helsinki
University of Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management.
Wong, P.K. & He, Z.L. (2005) A comparative study of innovation behaviour in Singapore's KIBS
and manufacturing firms. Service Industries Journal, 25, 23-42.
115
Annex 1 Summary of interview with academic specialists
Category Sub-category Aspects to be registered Aspect context /relevance and type of relationship
KNOWLEDGE
SOCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL
KNOWLEDGE (e.g. accountancy;
management consultancy)
- The role of social and institutional knowledge dimension in innovation; - The relationship between social and institutional knowledge and innovation.
TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE
(e.g. computer R&D; engineering services)
- The role of technical knowledge dimension in innovation; - The relationship between technical knowledge and innovation.
LOCATION
URBAN
Importance of the role of urban dimension in location
RURAL
Importance of the role of rural dimension in location
NETWORKS
UNIVERSITIES
Importance of the role of the universities in networks
COOPERATION
Importance of the firms cooperation in networks
INNOVATION
TECHNOLOGICAL
Importance of the role of technological dimension in innovation
NON - TECHNOLOGICAL
Importance of the role of non-technological dimension in innovation
INTERNATIONALIZATION
EUROPEAN UNION
Importance of European markets to the firms
REST OF THE WORLD
Importance of rest of the world markets to the firms
PERFORMANCE
FINANCIAL Importance of financial performance in overall organisational performance
NON-FINANCIAL Importance of non-financial performance in overall organisational performance
116
Annex 2
GUIÃO DE ENTREVISTA “A INFLUÊNCIA DOS KIBS NA INOVAÇÃO DOS CLIENTES"
Esta entrevista aborda questões sobre os dados gerais da sua empresa e um conjunto de questões sobre atividades de inovação, conhecimento, integração em redes, fatores de localização e estratégias de internacionalização. As respostas são completamente confidenciais. Apenas se pretende conhecer a sua opinião.
É importante que responda a todas as questões.
Agradecemos a sua preciosa colaboração nesta investigação.
I – Caracterização da empresa
1. Apresentação da empresa
Nome da Empresa: ___________________________________________________________________
Número de Identificação de Pessoa Coletiva (NIPC): (facultativo)
Atividade principal CAE: Descrição da CAE: ______________________________________
(Decreto -Lei n.º 381/2007 - Rev. 3)
Morada: ___________________________________________________________________________
Código Postal: - Município: ___________________________
Telefone/Fax: _______________________ Endereço eletrónico:____________________________________
Website www._________________________________
2. Mercados Geográficos
2.1 Indique quais os mercados geográficos dos serviços prestados pela empresa, durante o período de 2012 a 2014: Sim Não
A. Mercado Local/regional, em Portugal
B. Mercado Nacional (em Portugal, para além do local/regional)
C. Outros Países da União Europeia (UE) ou países associados5
D. Outros países
2.2 De entre os mercados geográficos assinalados, indique qual o que teve maior peso no
volume de negócios da empresa durante o período de 2012 a 2014? (Escolha a letra
correspondente)
5 Inclui os seguintes países membros e associados da União Europeia (UE): Albânia, Alemanha, Áustria, Bélgica, Bósnia e Herzegovina, Bulgária, Chipre, Croácia, Dinamarca, Eslováquia, Eslovénia, Espanha, Estónia, Finlândia, França, Grécia, Hungria, Irlanda, Islândia, Itália, Kosovo, Letónia, Liechtenstein, Lituânia, Luxemburgo, Macedónia, Malta, Montenegro, Noruega, Países Baixos, Polónia, Reino Unido, República Checa, Roménia, Sérvia, Suécia, Suíça e Turquia
Nº Entrevista
________
117
3. Informação económica e social da empresa:
3.1 Volume de Negócios (facultativo) 2012 2013 2014 Menos de 50.000€ De 50.000€ a 100.000€ De 100.000€ a 200.000€ De 200.000€ a 300.000€ De 300.000€ a 400.000€ De 400.000€ a 500.000€ Mais de 500.000€ 3.2 Número médio de pessoas ao serviço na empresa em:
2012 2013
2014
3.3 Indique a percentagem aproximada de pessoas ao serviço6 na empresa com formação superior no período entre 2012 e 2014 (Incluir pessoas ao serviço com o grau de bacharelato, licenciatura, mestrado, doutoramento) 2012 2013 2014 0%
1% a 4%
5% a 9% 10% a 24% 25% a 49% 50% a 74% 75% a 100%
4. Pessoa responsável pela resposta: (Recomenda-se a nomeação de alguém ligado à Gestão de Topo da empresa, ou que mantendo-se na sua esfera de atuação, possua autonomia e autoridade suficientes para interpelar e recolher informação junto a vários setores/áreas funcionais da empresa) 4.1 Função na empresa/Cargo:____________________________________________
4.2 Sexo: Masculino Feminino
4.3 Idade: < 25 Anos 25 - 35 anos 35 - 45 anos 45 - 55 anos > 55 anos
4.4 Habilitações Literárias (1 = ensino básico, 2 = ensino secundário, 3 = escola de formação profissional, 4 = licenciatura,5 = mestrado 6 = doutoramento)
II. A – ATIVIDADES DE INOVAÇÃO
5. Responda às seguintes questões, sobre inovação, de acordo com a sua opinião (tendo
6 Pessoal ao serviço: inclui as pessoas que, no período de referência, participaram na atividade da empresa qualquer que tenha sido a duração dessa participação, nas seguintes condições: a) Pessoal ligado à empresa por um contrato de trabalho, recebendo em contrapartida uma remuneração; b) Pessoal ligado à empresa, que por não estar vinculado por um contrato de trabalho, não recebe uma remuneração regular pelo tempo trabalhado ou trabalho fornecido (por exemplo: proprietários/gerentes, familiares não remunerados, membros ativos de cooperativas); c) Pessoal com vínculo a outras empresas, que trabalharam na empresa sendo por esta diretamente remunerados; d) Pessoas nas condições das alíneas anteriores, temporariamente ausentes por um período igual ou inferior a um mês por férias, conflito de trabalho, formação profissional, assim como por doença e acidente de trabalho.
118
em conta o período temporal 2012 a 2014):
5.1 Qual o papel que desempenha a inovação tecnológica (produtos/serviços/processos novos ou melhorados) e a inovação não tecnológica (práticas de negócio/ métodos de organização/ técnicas/políticas novas ou melhoradas) na empresa?
5.1.1 E no Sector?
5.1.2 Qual é o mais importante para a sua empresa?
5.2 Quem desenvolve essas inovações tecnológicas/não tecnológicas?
5.3 Qual o papel da inovação na introdução em novos mercados (Europeus e fora da Europa)?
5.6 Qual a percentagem do volume de negócios, do ano 2014, que resultou da introdução de novos produtos/serviços/processos (da inovação tecnológica) no mercado europeu, durante o período em análise?
5.6.2. E no mercado fora da Europa?
5.6.3 E relativamente à inovação não tecnológica? (Europa e fora da Europa)
5.7 A empresa participa nas atividades de inovação desenvolvidas pelos seus clientes? De que forma?
5.8. E nas atividades de inovação desenvolvidas por outras empresas? Quais? (Fornecedores; concorrentes; laboratórios, universidades e institutos; outras)
5.8.1 De que forma?
II. B – CONHECIMENTO
6. Responda às seguintes questões sobre conhecimento de acordo com a sua opinião (tendo em conta o período temporal 2012 a 2014):
6.1 Existe uma estratégia de gestão de conhecimento? Como se delineia?
6.2 Existem regras (protocolos) definidas?
6.3 Como envolvem os colaboradores?
6.4 Partilham o conhecimento por toda a empresa? De que forma?
6.5 Partilham conhecimento com clientes? De que forma?
6.5.2 E com outras entidades/empresas?
6.6 A organização aprende com as outras organizações?
6.7 Na empresa cria-se conhecimentos através de cooperação com clientes?
6.8 Faz parte das prioridades da empresa a criação, acumulação e disseminação de conhecimento.
II. C – REDES DE INOVAÇÃO
7. Responda às seguintes questões sobre redes (e cooperação) de acordo com a sua opinião (tendo em conta o período temporal 2012 a 2014):
7.1 Que tipo de redes de inovação a empresa tem estabelecidas?
7.2 Cooperam apenas com empresas regionais/nacionais ou também se envolvem com empresas internacionais?
7.2.1 Que tipo de organizações são estas? (Empresas, organizações governamentais, universidades…)
7.3 Qual o tipo de parceiro de cooperação mais importante para as atividades de inovação da
119
empresa? (Outras empresas do mesmo grupo; Fornecedores de equipamento, materiais, componentes ou software; Clientes ou consumidores do setor privado/público; Concorrentes ou outras empresas do mesmo setor de atividade; Consultores e laboratórios comerciais; Universidades ou outras instituições do ensino superior; Estado, institutos de investigação públicos ou privados)
7.4 A empresa coopera com instituições de ensino superior? Quais as razões?
7.4.1 Que tipo de cooperação estabelece com estas instituições?
7.5 Identifique a instituição de ensino superior com maior impacto na cooperação com a sua empresa (se aplicável):_______________________________________________________________________
7.6 A empresa coopera com clientes? Quais as razões?
7.6.1 Que tipo de cooperação estabelece com estas empresas?
7.6.2 A empresa colabora com os clientes para apoiar os seus processos de inovação?
7.7 A cooperação com outras empresas aumenta o desempenho da sua empresa?
7.7.1 E o desempenho das empresas com as quais coopera?
7.8 A empresa participa ativamente numa rede formal de partilha de experiências e conhecimentos?
II. D – FATORES DE LOCALIZAÇÃO
8. Responda às seguintes questões sobre localização de acordo com a sua opinião:
8.1 A proximidade de outras empresas, nomeadamente, dos clientes é importante? Porquê?
8.2 Porque escolheram a localização urbana/rural?
II. E – ESTRATÉGIAS DE INTERNACIONALIZAÇÃO
9. Responda às seguintes questões sobre Internacionalização, de acordo com a sua opinião (tendo em conta o período temporal 2012 a 2014):
9.1 Qual o motivo para iniciar o processo de Internacionalização da Empresa?
9.2 De que forma(s) estão presentes noutro(s) mercado(s)?
9.2. A empresa apoia/facilita o processo de Internacionalização de outras empresas? Como? (e.g. Partilha de conhecimento; transferência de conhecimento; (co)criação de conhecimento, …)
10. No sentido de dar continuidade a este estudo, pretendemos numa investigação futura conhecer o ponto de vista dos clientes quanto à influência que os serviços empresariais intensivos em conhecimento desempenham no seu processo de inovação. Neste sentido, solicitamos que, se possível, nos recomendem algum(uns) cliente(s) em cujo processo de inovação tenham de alguma forma participado/colaborado. _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
OBRIGADO PELA SUA COLABORAÇÃO E CONFIANÇA
120
ESTA ENTREVISTA ESTÁ SUJEITO AO SIGILO ESTATÍSTICO. NÃO SE PODERÃO DIVULGAR DADOS INDIVIDUALIZADOS.
Obs: Em caso de dúvidas ou para qualquer esclarecimento adicional, poderá contactar-nos através do correio eletrónico [email protected] (Alexandra Braga).
Caso pretenda receber os resultados destes estudos, introduza:
Endereço Eletrónico: ________________
Empresa:_____________
121
Annex 3
Data: Assunto: Projeto de Investigação "Inovação Intensiva em Conhecimento" - Solicitação de colaboração Exmos. Srs. A Escola Superior de Tecnologia e Gestão do Instituto Politécnico do Porto (www.estgf.ipp.pt), está a levar a cabo um projeto de investigação sobre as empresas de serviços intensivas em conhecimento (tradicionalmente denominadas de KIBS), no âmbito da elaboração da tese de Doutoramento em Gestão (na UBI) da Docente Alexandra Braga. Este projeto revela-se de particular importância pois tem como objetivo ampliar o conhecimento sobre uma fração da economia tão importante, e sobre a qual o conhecimento é ainda limitado. Nesse sentido, seria muito importante contar com a vossa colaboração, através do preenchimento de um inquérito, cujo tempo médio de resposta é de 10 minutos. Estamos certos da importância deste estudo não só para o meio académico, mas também para o meio empresarial, pelo que, caso pretendam, poderemos enviar, posteriormente, um relatório que sumariza os principais resultados. O link para o preenchimento do inquérito é: http://www2.estgf.ipp.pt/limesurvey/index.php/176665/lang-pt Certos de que perceberão o interesse deste projeto, agradecemos, antecipadamente, o tempo dispensado no preenchimento do inquérito. Aproveitamos para garantir a total confidencialidade dos dados, e caso não pretendam identificar-se, têm essa opção, precisando apenas de colocar a código de atividade exercida para que as respostas sejam consideradas no cluster a que pertencem. Melhores cumprimentos, Alexandra Maria da Silva Braga
Docente Eq. Assistente
Escola Superior de Tecnologia e Gestão de Felgueiras |School of Technology and Management of Felgueiras
Politécnico do Porto | Polytechnic Institute of Porto
Rua do Curral, Casa do Curral
4610-156 Felgueiras
Tlf: 255 314 002 - Fax: 255 314 120 e-mail: [email protected]
29/03/2016 LimeSurvey ESTGF.IPP QUESTIONÁRIO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO AO ESTUDO “A INFLUÊNCIA DOS KIBS NA INOVAÇÃO DOS CLIENTES"
http://www2.estgf.ipp.pt/limesurvey/index.php/admin/printablesurvey/sa/index/surveyid/176665 1/13
QUESTIONÁRIO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO AO ESTUDO “A INFLUÊNCIA DOS KIBS NAINOVAÇÃO DOS CLIENTES"
Este questionário aborda questões sobre os dados gerais da sua empresa e um conjunto de afirmações sobre atividades de inovação, conhecimento,integração em redes, fatores de localização e estratégias de internacionalização. Quando preencher o questionário tenha, por favor, em conta que nasegunda parte as questões foram concebidas para que sejam respondidas através de uma escala de intensidade que represente a perceção/opiniãoque tem sobre o assunto em questão. Apresentamse cinco pontos, em que 1 representa a opinião menos concordante, 5 a mais concordante, e 3uma posição neutra face à afirmação. Assinale a sua resposta com um X. Não há respostas corretas e incorretas. Apenas se pretende conhecer asua opinião.
É importante que responda a todas as questões, caso contrário o questionário não poderá ser considerado válido para tratamento estatístico. Asrespostas são completamente confidenciais.
Agradecemos a sua preciosa colaboração nesta investigação.
Obs: Em caso de dúvidas ou para qualquer esclarecimento adicional, poderá contactarnos através do correio eletrónico [email protected](Alexandra Braga).
Existem 50 perguntas neste inquérito
I – Caracterização da empresa
[]1. Apresentação da empresaNome da Empresa:
Por favor, escreva aqui a sua resposta:
[]Número de Identificação de Pessoa Coletiva (NIPC):
Neste campo só é possível introduzir números.
Por favor, escreva aqui a sua resposta:
[]Atividade principal CAE: *
Neste campo só é possível introduzir números.
Por favor, escreva aqui a sua resposta:
(Decreto Lei n.º 381/2007 Rev. 3)
[]Descrição da CAE: *
Por favor, escreva aqui a sua resposta:
(Decreto Lei n.º 381/2007 Rev. 3)
[]Morada
Por favor, escreva aqui a(s) sua(s) resposta(s):
Rua e Número:
Código Postal:
Município:
29/03/2016 LimeSurvey ESTGF.IPP QUESTIONÁRIO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO AO ESTUDO “A INFLUÊNCIA DOS KIBS NA INOVAÇÃO DOS CLIENTES"
http://www2.estgf.ipp.pt/limesurvey/index.php/admin/printablesurvey/sa/index/surveyid/176665 2/13
[]Contactos
Por favor, escreva aqui a(s) sua(s) resposta(s):
Telefone:
Fax:
Website:
Endereço eletrónico:
[]
2. Mercados Geográficos
2.1 Indique quais os mercados geográficos dos serviços prestados pela empresa, durante o período de 2012 a 2014:
*
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
Sim NãoA. Mercado Local/regional, em PortugalB. Mercado Nacional (em Portugal, para além do local/regional)
C. Outros Países da União Europeia (UE) ou países associados1
D. Outros países
1 Inclui os seguintes países membros e associados da União Europeia (UE): Albânia, Alemanha, Áustria, Bélgica, Bósnia e Herzegovina, Bulgária, Chipre, Croácia, Dinamarca, Eslováquia,Eslovénia, Espanha, Estónia, Finlândia, França, Grécia, Hungria, Irlanda, Islândia, Itália, Kosovo, Letónia, Liechtenstein, Lituânia, Luxemburgo, Macedónia, Malta, Montenegro, Noruega,Países Baixos, Polónia, Reino Unido, República Checa, Roménia, Sérvia, Suécia, Suíça e Turquia.
[]2.2 De entre os mercados geográficos assinalados, indique qual o que teve maior peso no volume de negócios da empresadurante o período de 2012 a 2014? (Escolha a letra correspondente)
Por favor, selecione apenas uma das seguintes opções:
A.
B.
C.
D.
[]3. Informação económica e social da empresa:
3.1 Volume de Negócios
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
Menos de50.000 €
De 50.000€ a100.000€
De 100.000€a 200.000€
De 200.000€a 300.000€
De 300.000€a 400.000€
De 400.000€a 500.000€
Mais de500.000€
201220132014
[]3.2 Pessoas ao serviço na empresa2 *
2012 2013 2014
Número médio de pessoas ao serviço na empresa em:
29/03/2016 LimeSurvey ESTGF.IPP QUESTIONÁRIO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO AO ESTUDO “A INFLUÊNCIA DOS KIBS NA INOVAÇÃO DOS CLIENTES"
http://www2.estgf.ipp.pt/limesurvey/index.php/admin/printablesurvey/sa/index/surveyid/176665 3/13
[]
3.3 Indique a percentagem aproximada de pessoas ao serviço2 na empresa com formação superior entre 2012 e 2014 (Incluirpessoas ao serviço com o grau de bacharelato, licenciatura, mestrado, doutoramento) *
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
2012 2013 20140%1% a 4%5% a 9%10% a 24%25% a 49%50% a 74%75% a 100%
2 Pessoal ao serviço: inclui as pessoas que, no período de referência, participaram na atividade da empresa qualquer que tenha sido a duração dessa participação, nas seguintescondições:
a) Pessoal ligado à empresa por um contrato de trabalho, recebendo em contrapartida uma remuneração;
b) Pessoal ligado à empresa, que por não estar vinculado por um contrato de trabalho, não recebe uma remuneração regular pelo tempo trabalhado ou trabalho fornecido (por exemplo:proprietários/gerentes, familiares não remunerados, membros ativos de cooperativas);
c) Pessoal com vínculo a outras empresas, que trabalharam na empresa sendo por esta diretamente remunerados;
d) Pessoas nas condições das alíneas anteriores, temporariamente ausentes por um período igual ou inferior a um mês por férias, conflito de trabalho, formação profissional, assim comopor doença e acidente de trabalho.
[]4. Pessoa responsável pela resposta:
(Recomendase a nomeação de alguém ligado à Gestão de Topo da empresa, ou que mantendose na sua esfera de atuação,possua autonomia e autoridade suficientes para interpelar e recolher informação junto a vários setores/áreas funcionais daempresa)
4.1 Função na empresa/Cargo: *
Por favor, escreva aqui a sua resposta:
[]4.2 Sexo: *
Por favor, selecione apenas uma das seguintes opções:
Feminino
Masculino
[]4.3 Idade: *
Por favor, selecione apenas uma das seguintes opções:
< 25 Anos
25 35 anos
35 45 anos
45 55 anos
> 55 anos
[]4.4 Habilitações Literárias: *
Por favor, selecione apenas uma das seguintes opções:
Ensino básico
Ensino secundário
Escola de formação profissional
Licenciatura
Mestrado
Doutoramento
29/03/2016 LimeSurvey ESTGF.IPP QUESTIONÁRIO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO AO ESTUDO “A INFLUÊNCIA DOS KIBS NA INOVAÇÃO DOS CLIENTES"
http://www2.estgf.ipp.pt/limesurvey/index.php/admin/printablesurvey/sa/index/surveyid/176665 4/13
II. A – ATIVIDADES DE INOVAÇÃOResponda às seguintes questões, assinalando o seu grau de concordância em relação às afirmações sobre inovação que se apresentam a seguir.
[]
5. Durante o período de 2012 a 2014, nesta empresa foram introduzidos (as):
(1 = Discordo completamente, 2 = Discordo 3 = Não concordo nem discordo 4 = Concordo e 5 = Concordo completamente) *
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 55.1 Serviços novos ou significativamente melhorados lançados no mercado (não necessita de ser novidade nosetor de atividade ou no mercado, mas deverá ser novidade em relação aos serviços comercializados pela empresa. Éirrelevante se a inovação foi desenvolvida originalmente pela empresa ou por outras empresas/instituições)5.2 Processos novos ou significativamente melhorados lançados no mercado (por exemplo, métodos de produçãode serviços novos ou melhorados; métodos de logística, entrega ou distribuição dos fatores produtivos ou produtos finaisnovos ou significativamente melhorados)5.3 Atividades de apoio aos processos da empresa novas ou melhoradas (por exemplo, novos sistemas demanutenção, de contabilidade ou de informática)5.4 Novas práticas de negócio na organização dos procedimentos (por exemplo, na gestão da cadeia defornecedores, na reengenharia de negócios, na gestão do conhecimento, “lean production”, na gestão da qualidade, etc.)5.5 Novos métodos de organização das responsabilidades e da tomada de decisão (por exemplo, primeirautilização de novos sistemas de responsabilização dos trabalhadores, de trabalho em equipa, descentralização,integração ou desintegração de serviços, sistemas de formação, etc.)5.6 Novos métodos de organização das relações externas com outras empresas ou instituições públicas (porexemplo, primeira utilização de alianças, parcerias, outsourcing ou subcontratação, etc.)5.7 Novas técnicas ou meios de comunicação (Media) para a promoção dos serviços (por exemplo, utilização pelaprimeira vez de uma nova forma de publicidade, nova imagem da marca, introdução de cartões de fidelidade, etc.)5.8 Novos métodos de distribuição/colocação de serviços ou novos canais de vendas (por exemplo, utilização pelaprimeira vez de um sistema de franchising ou distribuição de licenças, vendas diretas, venda exclusiva a retalho, novasformas de apresentação de um produto, etc.)5.9 Novas políticas de preço para os serviços (por exemplo, utilização pela primeira vez da variável preço paradeterminar a procura, sistema de descontos, etc.)
[]
6. Quem desenvolveu essas inovações tecnológicas (de produto/processo)?
(Considerar as incluídas nos pontos 5.1, 5.2 e 5.3) *
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 56.1 A empresa6.2 A empresa em cooperação com outras empresas ou instituições*6.3 A empresa adaptando ou modificando inovações desenvolvidas originalmente por outras empresas ou instituições*6.4 Outras empresas ou instituições*
* Inclua outras empresas ou empresas pertencentes ao grupo (tais como subsidiárias, empresas irmãs ou sede social, etc.). Instituições inclui Universidades, institutos politécnicos,institutos de investigação, Instituições Privadas Sem Fins Lucrativos (IPSFL), etc.
[]
7. Quem desenvolveu essas inovações não tecnológicas (organizacionais/marketing)?
(Considerar as incluídas nos pontos 5.4 até 5.9) *
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 57.1 A empresa7.2 A empresa em cooperação com outras empresas ou instituições*7.3 A empresa adaptando ou modificando inovações desenvolvidas originalmente por outras empresas ou instituições*7.4 Outras empresas ou instituições*
* Inclua outras empresas ou empresas pertencentes ao grupo (tais como subsidiárias, empresas irmãs ou sede social, etc.). Instituições inclui Universidades, institutos politécnicos,institutos de investigação, Instituições Privadas Sem Fins Lucrativos (IPSFL), etc.
[]8. Algum dos serviços novos ou significativamente melhorados, introduzidos pela empresa durante o período de 2012 a 2014,foi: *
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 58.1 Novo apenas para a empresa (podendo já existir no seu mercado)8.2 Novo para o mercado de Portugal?8.3 Novo para o mercado Europeu?8.4 Novo para o mercado mundial?
29/03/2016 LimeSurvey ESTGF.IPP QUESTIONÁRIO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO AO ESTUDO “A INFLUÊNCIA DOS KIBS NA INOVAÇÃO DOS CLIENTES"
http://www2.estgf.ipp.pt/limesurvey/index.php/admin/printablesurvey/sa/index/surveyid/176665 5/13
[]9. Qual a percentagem do volume de negócios do ano de 2014 que resultou da introdução de novos serviços no mercadoeuropeu durante o período de 2012 a 2014? *
Por favor, selecione apenas uma das seguintes opções:
0% e menos de 1%
1% e menos de 5%
5% e menos de 10%
10% e menos de 25%
25% ou mais
Não sabe
Não aplicável
[]10. Qual a percentagem do volume de negócios do ano de 2014 que resultou da introdução de novos serviços no mercado forada Europa durante o período de 2012 a 2014? *
Por favor, selecione apenas uma das seguintes opções:
0% e menos de 1%
1% e menos de 5%
5% e menos de 10%
10% e menos de 25%
25% ou mais
Não sabe
Não aplicável
[]
11. Durante o período de 2012 a 2014, a empresa participou nas seguintes atividades de inovação desenvolvidas pelos seusclientes:
(1 = Discordo completamente, 2 = Discordo 3 = Não concordo nem discordo 4 = Concordo e 5 = Concordo completamente) *
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 511.1 Aquisição externa de I&D (I&D extramuros): atividades de Investigação e Desenvolvimento (I&D) que a empresa(cliente) contratou a outras empresas ou a instituições de investigação públicas ou privadas para criar novoconhecimento, ou para resolver problemas científicos ou técnicos (inclui o desenvolvimento de software quando seenquadre neste âmbito).11.2 Aquisição de maquinaria, equipamento, software e edifícios: aquisição de maquinaria avançada, equipamentos,software e edifícios para serem utilizados no desenvolvimento de produtos ou processos novos, ou significativamentemelhorados.11.3 Aquisição de conhecimento existente noutras empresas ou instituições: aquisição de conhecimento existente(knowhow), trabalhos com direitos de autor, invenções patenteadas e não patenteadas, etc. de outras empresas ouinstituições para o desenvolvimento de produtos ou processos novos, ou significativamente melhorados.11.4 Formação para atividades de inovação: formação contratada externamente especificamente para odesenvolvimento e/ou introdução de produtos ou processos novos ou significativamente melhorados11.5 Introdução das inovações no mercado: atividades contratadas externamente especificamente para introduzir nomercado bens ou serviços novos ou significativamente melhorados, incluindo estudos de mercado e campanhaspublicitárias no lançamento11.6 Design: atividades contratadas externamente para desenhar, ou alterar a forma ou aparência de bens ou serviços11.7 Outras: outras atividades contratadas externamente para implementar produtos ou processos novos ousignificativamente melhorados, tais como estudos de viabilidade, testeis, engenharia industrial, etc.11.8 Introdução em novos mercados europeus: atividades contratadas externamente para introduzir produtos oudesenvolver novos mercados dentro da Europa.11.9 Introdução em novos mercados fora da Europa: atividades contratadas externamente para introduzir produtos oudesenvolver novos mercados fora da Europa.
[]11.10 Outras (indique quais):
Por favor, escreva aqui a sua resposta:
29/03/2016 LimeSurvey ESTGF.IPP QUESTIONÁRIO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO AO ESTUDO “A INFLUÊNCIA DOS KIBS NA INOVAÇÃO DOS CLIENTES"
http://www2.estgf.ipp.pt/limesurvey/index.php/admin/printablesurvey/sa/index/surveyid/176665 6/13
II. B – CONHECIMENTOResponda às seguintes questões, assinalando o seu grau de concordância em relação às afirmações sobre conhecimento que se apresentam a seguir:
[]
12. Considerar o período de 2012 a 2014:
(1 = Discordo completamente, 2 = Discordo 3 = Não concordo nem discordo 4 = Concordo e 5 = Concordo completamente) *
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 512.1 Nesta empresa existem protocolos estabelecidos acerca da forma como se partilha conhecimento (a nível interno)12.2 Nesta empresa existem protocolos estabelecidos acerca da forma como se partilha conhecimento (a nível externo)12.3 Nesta empresa o conhecimento é adquirido facilmente através de manuais e documentos12.4 Nesta empresa elaboramse atas das reuniões de forma a documentar resultados de projetos e de grupos detrabalho12.5 Nesta empresa partilhamse conhecimentos através de manuais e de documentos internos12.6 Nesta empresa o conhecimento é facilmente partilhável pelos colegas de trabalho12.7 Nesta empresa o conhecimento é facilmente partilhável com colaboradores de outras empresas12.8 Nesta empresa o conhecimento é facilmente partilhável com os clientes12.9 Nesta empresa é fácil receber pessoalmente conselhos dos supervisores12.10 Nesta empresa realizamse reuniões informais para partilha de conhecimento12.11 Nesta empresa existe uma relação próxima a um “mentor” que facilita a passagem de conhecimento12.12 A empresa partilha experiências com outras empresas que a ajudam na compreensão das mesmas12.13 A organização aprende com as outras organizações12.14 Nesta empresa criase conhecimentos através de cooperação com clientes12.15 Faz parte das prioridades da empresa a criação, acumulação e disseminação de conhecimento.
[]Comentários:
Por favor, escreva aqui a sua resposta:
29/03/2016 LimeSurvey ESTGF.IPP QUESTIONÁRIO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO AO ESTUDO “A INFLUÊNCIA DOS KIBS NA INOVAÇÃO DOS CLIENTES"
http://www2.estgf.ipp.pt/limesurvey/index.php/admin/printablesurvey/sa/index/surveyid/176665 7/13
II. C – REDES DE INOVAÇÃOResponda às seguintes questões, assinalando o seu grau de concordância em relação às afirmações sobre informação e cooperação que se apresentam a seguir:
[]13. Durante o período de 2012 a 2014, a empresa cooperou no âmbito das atividades de inovação com:(1 = Discordo completamente, 2 = Discordo 3 = Não concordo nem discordo 4 = Concordo e 5 = Concordo completamente) *
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 5A. Outras empresas do mesmo grupoB. Fornecedores de equipamento, materiais, componentes ou softwareC. Clientes ou consumidores do setor privadoD. Clientes ou consumidores do setor público (inclui organizações governamentais da administração local, regional enacional, assim como agências, escolas, hospitais e outras organizações governamentais fornecedoras de serviços desegurança, transporte, alojamento, energia, etc.)E. Concorrentes ou outras empresas do mesmo setor de atividadeF. Consultores e laboratórios comerciaisG. Universidades ou outras instituições do ensino superiorH. Estado, institutos de investigação públicos ou privados
[]14. (Caso aplicável) Qual o tipo de parceiro de cooperação mais importante para as atividades de inovação da empresa?(escolha a letra correspondente)
Por favor, selecione apenas uma das seguintes opções:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
[]
As questões seguintes prendemse com a cooperação com as instituições de ensino superior (IES)
(Caso não se aplique, avance para a questão 19)
15. Durante o período de 2012 a 2014, a empresa cooperou com instituições de ensino superior, devido a:
(1 = Discordo completamente, 2 = Discordo 3 = Não concordo nem discordo 4 = Concordo e 5 = Concordo completamente)
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 515.1 Proximidade Geográfica15.2 Contactos pessoais frequentes15.3 Confiança recíproca15.4 Competência mútua
[]16. Durante o período de 2012 a 2014, que tipo de cooperação estabeleceu com Instituições de ensino superior?
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 516.1 Ausência de colaboração16.2 Colaborações esporádicas16.3 Colaboração contínua16.4 Recurso com frequência aos docentes do ensino superior
[]Outras (indique quais):
Por favor, escreva aqui a sua resposta:
[]17. Identifique a instituição de ensino superior com maior impacto na cooperação com a sua empresa (se aplicável):
Por favor, escreva aqui a sua resposta:
29/03/2016 LimeSurvey ESTGF.IPP QUESTIONÁRIO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO AO ESTUDO “A INFLUÊNCIA DOS KIBS NA INOVAÇÃO DOS CLIENTES"
http://www2.estgf.ipp.pt/limesurvey/index.php/admin/printablesurvey/sa/index/surveyid/176665 8/13
[]18. Durante o período de 2012 a 2014, as seguintes alternativas tiveram influência na criação da cooperação entre a empresa ea IES:
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 518.1 Ampliar o mercado da região geográfica de atuação18.2 Desenvolver novos produtos e/ou serviços18.3 Desenvolver novos conceitos18.4 Partilhar custos de I&D18.5 Gerar intercâmbio formal e informal de pessoas e ideias18.6 Elevar a eficiência operacional18.7 Partilhar tecnologias e conhecimento18.8 Aprender com o parceiro de cooperação18.9 Reduzir custos gerais
[]Outras (indique quais):
Por favor, escreva aqui a sua resposta:
[]
As questões seguintes prendemse com a cooperação com outras empresas e instituições (exceto clientes e IES)
(Caso não se aplique, avance para a questão 21)
19. Durante o período de 2012 a 2014, a empresa cooperou com outras empresas/instituições, devido a:
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 519.1 Proximidade Geográfica19.2 Contactos pessoais frequentes19.3 Confiança recíproca19.4 Competência mútua
[]20. Durante o período de 2012 a 2014, as seguintes alternativas tiveram influência na criação da cooperação entre a empresa eoutras empresas/instituições:
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 520.1 Ampliar o mercado da região geográfica de atuação20.2 Sugestão de ideias para melhorar produtos (bens/serviços) ou processos20.3 Desenvolver novos produtos e/ou processos20.4 Desenvolver novos conceitos20.5 Partilhar custos de I&D20.6 Gerar intercâmbio formal e informal de pessoas e ideias20.7 Elevar a eficiência operacional20.8 Reduzir custos gerais20.9 Partilhar tecnologias e conhecimento20.10 Aprender com o parceiro de cooperação
[]20.11 Outras (indique quais):
Por favor, escreva aqui a sua resposta:
[]
As questões seguintes prendemse com a cooperação com empresas clientes
21. Durante o período de 2012 a 2014, a empresa cooperou com clientes, devido a: *
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 521.1 Proximidade Geográfica21.2 Contactos pessoais frequentes21.3 Confiança recíproca21.4 Competência mútua
29/03/2016 LimeSurvey ESTGF.IPP QUESTIONÁRIO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO AO ESTUDO “A INFLUÊNCIA DOS KIBS NA INOVAÇÃO DOS CLIENTES"
http://www2.estgf.ipp.pt/limesurvey/index.php/admin/printablesurvey/sa/index/surveyid/176665 9/13
[]22. Durante o período de 2012 a 2014, as seguintes alternativas tiveram influência na criação da cooperação entre a empresa eos clientes: *
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 522.1 Ampliar o mercado da região geográfica de atuação22.2 Sugestão de ideias para melhorar produtos (bens/serviços) ou processos22.3 Desenvolver novos produtos e/ou processos22.4 Desenvolver novos conceitos22.5 Partilhar custos de I&D22.6 Gerar intercâmbio formal e informal de pessoas e ideias22.7 Elevar a eficiência operacional22.8 Reduzir custos gerais22.9 Partilhar tecnologias e conhecimento22.10 Aprender com o parceiro de cooperação
[]22.11 Outras (indique quais):
Por favor, escreva aqui a sua resposta:
[]25. A empresa: *
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 5Participa ativamente numa rede formal de partilha de experiências e conhecimentos.
[]23. A empresa colabora com os clientes para apoiar os seus processos de inovação da seguinte forma: *
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 523.1 como facilitadora da inovação (ao apoiar um cliente no seu processo de inovação)23.2 como transportadora de inovação (ao desempenhar um papel na transferência de inovações existentes de umaempresa para outra, ou dentro da indústria)23.3 como fonte de inovação (ao desempenhar um papel central na iniciação e/ou desenvolvimento de inovação para osseus clientes)
[]24. Considera que a cooperação com outras empresas aumenta: *
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 524.1 o desempenho da sua empresa?24.2 o desempenho das empresas com as quais coopera?
29/03/2016 LimeSurvey ESTGF.IPP QUESTIONÁRIO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO AO ESTUDO “A INFLUÊNCIA DOS KIBS NA INOVAÇÃO DOS CLIENTES"
http://www2.estgf.ipp.pt/limesurvey/index.php/admin/printablesurvey/sa/index/surveyid/176665 10/13
II. D – FATORES DE LOCALIZAÇÃOResponda às seguintes questões, assinalando o seu grau de concordância em relação às afirmações sobre localização que se apresentam a seguir.
[]26. Os seguintes fatores influenciaram a sua decisão quanto à localização da sua empresa:(1 = Discordo completamente, 2 = Discordo 3 = Não concordo nem discordo 4 = Concordo e 5 = Concordo completamente) *
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 526.1 Naturalidade ou proximidade da residência do fundador26.2 Desejo do fundador, gestores e funcionários de viver nessa localidade26.3 Boas condições de alojamento26.4 Clima26.5 Atitude da comunidade face ao negócio26.6 Bons acessos e infraestruturas rodoviárias26.7 Outras infraestruturas físicas (caminhos de ferro, aeroportos, telecomunicações, etc.)26.8 Proximidade dos centros urbanos26.9 Proximidade do mercado e a dimensão das aglomerações26.10 Especialização geográfica26.11 Qualificação do capital humano26.12 Custos com salários26.13 Custos da propriedade industrial26.14 Densidade populacional26.15 Nível de atividade económica do local onde se localiza a empresa26.16 Proximidade das matériasprimas26.17 Proximidade dos serviços26.18 Proximidade de centros administrativos26.19 Incubadora de empresas26.20 Acesso ao conhecimento gerado por IES ou centros de investigação26.21 Acesso aos parques de ciência26.22 Incentivos de I&D, criação de empregos ou outros incentivos26.23 Proximidade de instituições de ensino26.24 Feiras tecnológicas26.25 Empresários de referência na região
[]Outros (quais):
Por favor, escreva aqui a sua resposta:
29/03/2016 LimeSurvey ESTGF.IPP QUESTIONÁRIO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO AO ESTUDO “A INFLUÊNCIA DOS KIBS NA INOVAÇÃO DOS CLIENTES"
http://www2.estgf.ipp.pt/limesurvey/index.php/admin/printablesurvey/sa/index/surveyid/176665 11/13
II. E – ESTRATÉGIAS DE INTERNACIONALIZAÇÃOResponda às seguintes questões, assinalando o seu grau de concordância em relação às afirmações sobre Internacionalização, durante o período 2012 a 2014, que se apresentam a seguir:
[]Estratégias de internacionalização(1 = Discordo completamente, 2 = Discordo 3 = Não concordo nem discordo 4 = Concordo e 5 = Concordo completamente) *
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 527. A empresa colabora frequentemente com instituições externas, para implementar estratégias de inovação.
[]28. (Caso aplicável) As motivações que mais peso tiveram no momento em que a empresa decidiu internacionalizar o seunegócio para o mercado externo foram:
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 528.1 Necessidade de crescimento da empresa28.2 Obtenção de economias de escala28.3 Exploração de competências próprias28.4 Diversificação do risco28.5 Estrangulamento do mercado doméstico28.6 Melhorar Margens e rentabilidade28.7 A internacionalização decorre do processo de inovação28.8 Procura de mãodeobra barata28.9 Proximidade das fontes de matériaprima28.10 Reação à atuação da concorrência28.11 Acompanhamento de clientes importantes
[]28.12 Outras (indique quais):
Por favor, escreva aqui a sua resposta:
[]29. A empresa colabora com os clientes para facilitar/apoiar os seus processos de internacionalização da seguinte forma: *
Por favor, selecione uma resposta apropriada para cada item:
1 2 3 4 529.1 Partilha de conhecimento29.2 Transferência de conhecimento29.3 (Co)criação de conhecimento
29/03/2016 LimeSurvey ESTGF.IPP QUESTIONÁRIO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO AO ESTUDO “A INFLUÊNCIA DOS KIBS NA INOVAÇÃO DOS CLIENTES"
http://www2.estgf.ipp.pt/limesurvey/index.php/admin/printablesurvey/sa/index/surveyid/176665 12/13
III. INVESTIGAÇÃO FUTURA
[]30. No sentido de dar continuidade a este estudo, pretendemos numa investigação futura conhecer o ponto de vista dosclientes quanto à influência que os serviços empresariais intensivos em conhecimento desempenham no seu processo deinovação. Neste sentido, solicitamos que, se possível, nos recomendem algum(uns) cliente(s) em cujo processo de inovaçãotenham de alguma forma participado/colaborado.
Por favor, escreva aqui a sua resposta:
[]Caso pretenda receber os resultados destes estudos, introduza:
Por favor, escreva aqui a(s) sua(s) resposta(s):
Endereço eletrónico
Empresa
29/03/2016 LimeSurvey ESTGF.IPP QUESTIONÁRIO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO AO ESTUDO “A INFLUÊNCIA DOS KIBS NA INOVAÇÃO DOS CLIENTES"
http://www2.estgf.ipp.pt/limesurvey/index.php/admin/printablesurvey/sa/index/surveyid/176665 13/13
Obrigado pela sua colaboração e confiança.Este questionário está sujeito ao sigilo estatístico. Não se poderão divulgar dados individualizados.
Submeter o seu inquéritoObrigado por ter concluído este inquérito.